I’m not sure what your conversation was about, because I didn’t read it. It doesn’t even appear that you’re involved at all.

Do you want me to quote exactly which sentences I’m referring to? Because it is all there above, unless there is some formatting issue that I am unaware of.

For instance, I read the accusation “He's part of the same side that spread hate, calls for violence, and for dividing people into us vs them.”

In the paragraph after I read this.

The point being, we could actually divide the world into two sides of legitimate good and bad. The good stands for respecting human rights and rejecting the concept of an individual as a means to an end. Those who argues for equality, the respect of each individual, respect for another group than them etc. ...and the other argues in opposition to that.

What do we have?

I explain in the following paragraphs.

A charge of "spreading hate" -- but I'm the one who has used "evil", not @Christoffer, except this one time in quotes:

I cited the words I was responding to in preceding paragraphs.

This assassination seems to whitewash what Kirk spread around, and it was not to spread love. He's part of the same side that spread hate, calls for violence, and for dividing people into us vs them. This side has no political color. It just happens to be more common on the extreme right in this time in history.

The point being, we could actually divide the world into two sides of legitimate good and bad. The good stands for respecting human rights and rejecting the concept of an individual as a means to an end. Those who argues for equality, the respect of each individual, respect for another group than them etc. ...and the other argues in opposition to that.

Arguing for the good side is arguing for the side that, with evidence in living standards and quality of life in the world, produces the best living conditions in a society.

Right now we're seeing a rise in the spread of hateful, polarizing rhetoric. Something that divides and makes enemies of neighbors. This rhetoric is eroding society and causing a lot of suffering and even deaths.

When speaking on a topic like this thread, I think it's important to be aware of which stance people holds in an argument. Which also means we can't ignore what someone like Kirk spread around. We can't whitewash what he did with spreading hate because he was the target of political violence, just as much as we can't ignore that the assassin acted out according to the bad side as well through his violence.

I think it's important not to get lost in these basic ideas about what is good and what is bad. The reality is that we can't justify the assassination, but we can't justify what Kirk stood for either.

And there we have it.

Note here the charge of “spreading hate”, and the making of a threadbare connection between the act of holding and espousing one’s belief and being evil, as if Kirk’s brain state and the combination of sounds that came from his mouth is all it takes to make such an accusation. On the one hand Kirk committed the sin of dividing people into Us vs Them, but on the other Kirk resided on the wrong side of the Good and the Evil, those who speak like us and those who speak like them.

The problem is there is not even a string of chewing gum between the premise and the conclusion, between one duplicitous phrase and the next. It is no strange wonder that the assassin himself accused Charlie of such evil, for “spreading hate”, days before killing him.

This sort of piffle can be read all over social media and presents a window into the empty logic of the censors among us.

Good read, thanks for writing

Modern self-help culture, mindfulness programs, positive psychology, and to a lesser extent outdoor education, present themselves as the heirs of ancient, medieval, and Eastern wisdom traditions (i.e., to philosophy and spirituality). They borrow their vocabulary from these sources, speaking to "character development," virtue, flourishing, balance, discipline, detachment, etc., yet sever these practices from the original anthropology that supported them. In turn, the switch towards a "thin" anthropology, and the liberal phobia of strong ethical claims tends to unmoor them from any strong commitment to an ordering telos that structures the "self-development" they intend to promote. Everything becomes about the individual, about getting us what we want.

Just a couple questions.

What is the “original anthropology” that supported these practices?

Do you believe pre-modern philosophers were acting without self-interest, and that their philosophical activity had no telos towards their own self-development, but towards something else?

As an outsider to American gun culture, I think it's a shame that so many agree with Charlie Kirk, who once said "I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."

Everyone keeps mentioning this statement here and elsewhere, without citation. It’s an odd phenomenon because clearly it is not something that you all remember hearing or reading before his murder, assuming that you never followed his debates and conjured it from memory. I never heard it before but I’ve read it a bunch of times today. Was it passed around on Reddit or Bluesky or something in the wake of his assassination?

I suppose it’s supposed to be a comforting piece of irony or karma for his haters, or an argument for gun-grabbing. The problem is its repetition only serves to undermine the irony. He believed people should have the right to own guns in order protect the rights of themselves and their loved ones, and his murder only proves to justify that statement. There are crazies out there and people who hate you and wish death upon you because they don’t like what you say. These people do not believe in any rights at all. Perhaps you do not believe in such rights nor possess any desire to protect them, or maybe you skilled enough to take out those who would hurt you and your loved ones with homemade nunchucks and kitchen knives, but the statement is not the irony everyone is making it out to be.

reports are circulating that the weapon and bullets used to assassinate Charlie Kirk were labelled or engraved with “transgender and anti-fascist ideology”.

https://nypost.com/2025/09/11/us-news/gun-charlie-kirk-shot-with-revealed/

Personally, I would remain skeptical of such engravings as it would be the perfect cover for more sinister suspects, such as the cartels or some foreign-influence operation, who may be trying to goad the reactionaries into action.

My coworkers wanted to vote on what food to order, and I was like, I'm not a slave, damn you! They totally got my point.

You need another’s vote to decide what food to order? No wonder.

It’s a stupid analogy because in that case you’re not operating under the illusion that you’re participating in government, that a government job-holder can represent you and your interests while deciding the conditions of your life, and that you have some sort of say in power. The whole process is at best performative piffle for thralls, at worst, the signing over of yourself as property.

The only oppressed victim in this case was Charlie Kirk. Do you believe his family deserves revenge? Perhaps.

I’m with you on voting, though. If one votes he acquiesces to the system, and his own serfdom.

I remember you talking about the group of anarchists you housed with.

I figured you'd prefer if they could stay rather than be pushed out.

I never lived there. I only surfed with them. I would prefer that that they weren’t burnt out of their homes.

I’m not sure what any of this has to do with ballots or bullets though. My comment was regarding people who would resort to murder in order to make a political statement or affect politics.

My collective? I’m just one guy. But yes, I would would leave rather than resort to violence.

Neither, in my opinion. People should just try to avoid having their sentiments outraged when others have thoughts and words that differ from their own.

Trump ally and conservative pundit Charlie Kirk was sniped in the neck while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University earlier today. Conflicting reports about whether he is dead or not. Not sure if shooter has been apprehended.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/10/us/charlie-kirk-shot-utah

Sounds about right.

You just listed, nearly verbatim, a bunch of lawfare complaints from anti-Trump plaintiffs and lawyers, which you imply are “damning facts”, even though they haven’t been ruled on.

You know what has been ruled on? Biden’s agenda and a series of progressive causes, much of which have been deemed unconstitutional and unlawful by the highest court in the land.

"I think it is the toughest series of defeats since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s had many New Deal programs declared unconstitutional," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School, referring to another conservative court that frustrated a Democratic president.

John Yoo, who served as a Justice Department lawyer under Republican former President George W. Bush, said Biden experienced "an amazing number of defeats" in his biggest cases as president.
"It's hard to think of another president in our lifetimes who lost so many high-profile cases on issues so near and dear to his constitutional agenda," said Yoo, now a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-dealt-biden-historic-series-defeats-2025-01-18/

The majority of the population doesn't care about (what can be characterized as) legal technicalities, they simply want action that achieves the results they desire. For this reason, I truly wish the center and left would focus on the aspects of Trump's actions that are illegal and unconstitutional, and remind everyone on why the "technicalities" matter - rule of law is critical to our system of government.

They would then be forced to admit their own illegal and unconstitutional actions. Trump has almost always won his Supreme Court cases during his second term. In July it was reported that the U.S. Supreme Court granted all 15 of President Donald Trump's emergency applications since April.

The rule of law has been a thorn in the sides of Trump’s opponents, so it would be a little comical to hear them opine about the rule of law now.

The one visible success of DEI initiatives and the entire woke movement—and also the key to its demise—was its ability to disguise general tyranny as enlightened governance. Racism was disguised as anti-racism. Sexism was disguised as anti-sexism. Conformity, discrimination, and exclusion was disguised as diversity, equity, and inclusion. Not only did people engage in such discriminatory practices, they did so believing they were combatting discriminatory practices, and they were in the right to do so.

The entire episode proves to me that anyone can hide tyranny, become tyrannical, and live with tyranny, so long as the stories detailing their efforts sing the opposite tale. The problem is it can only be disguised for so long.

It would be interesting to hear from someone that was full-on woke, but who has repented, to see how he was able to make peace with what he was doing. I imagine the steps involved were like the ones Czeslaw Milosz wrote about in the Captive Mind, where he had to come up with delusions in order to soothe the inevitable cognitive dissonance required to live under Stalinism.

The problem for proponents and critics of liberalism alike is that there is very little that is liberal about the current order. Nor has there ever been. Despite the claims of its ascendancy it is surprisingly difficult to find liberal policy at work anywhere in the world. (Though socialism gets some love within the constitutions of some republics, liberalism doesn’t.) Liberalism in particular and freedom in general become the scapegoat once again. It takes a rhetorical beating while the true culprits of the current malaise continue achieving power.

Most states are republics, either by name or by form, and whether those in power are liberal, communist, or fascist in their thinking. Heads of state, mixed constitutions, rule of law, representative governments—this enduring structure is largely the legacy of the interbellum establishment, not of any one ideology or political philosopher. And every statist, no matter their ideology, serves as its Praetorian Guard.

These structures and the resulting effects of their control over, and involvement in, the lives of every person ought to be at the forefront of the criticism of modernity. But as usual they miss the mark, end up achieving power, and we come to find that we were worse off than before.

The US government is now one of Intel’s largest shareholders, kicking off fears within Trump’s own party of socialism, nationalization, state capitalism, you name it. The realignment of the parties continue.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/investors-worry-trumps-intel-deal-kicks-off-era-us-industrial-policy-2025-08-27/

Your stoicism compelled you to spend time, search my name and Biden’s. I love living rent free.

Unfortunately that was 5 and a half years ago. I love how Trump is ramming this stuff down your throat. Three more years.

Properties, qualities, characteristics, and so on, are mental or linguistic abstractions of the things described, or even the descriptions themselves. Your morphological derivations “redness” and “carness” indicate this. They are derivations, not sets or properties.

I think all forms of protest are stupid. But I do defend your right to be as stupid as you want.

I’m not against it at all. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.

I think it’s to get his opponents to defend flag burning, personally. Tim Walz already encouraged people to do so.

Trump’s EO regarding flag burning is so stupid, so easily dismissed both by law and by precedent, that it makes me believe there is an ulterior motive. Hate speech laws are the relics of the typical nanny state. People should be able to burn flags, holy books, and burn rubber on rainbow-painted crosswalks without fear of state reprisal. The dumbest idea of the Trump administration since floating the vape ban.

DOJ releases Ghislaine Maxwell transcripts:

https://www.justice.gov/maxwell-interview

Sweet sweet justice.

the FBI just raided the home of arch-neocon John Bolton. This is awesome.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/22/politics/john-bolton-fbi-search

The New York appeals court has struck down Letitia James’ $465000000 civil penalty against President Trump. It was one of the more egregious examples of Anti-Trump lawfare that we have to date, but the repudiation of the New York attorney general and the anti-Trump factions of the judiciary is welcome news. Is the thumb being lifted from the scale?

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/appeals-court-throws-trumps-454-million-civil-fraud/story?id=124848691

These are commonwealth countries:

https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries

Point missed.

I’m not clicking on your links, bub. One day you’ll just have to make an argument.

You can watch in anti-Trump circles the increasing fanaticism in regards to Trump and Putin. The last thing they want is Trump to succeed.

Unfortunately, the ineffectual leaders of other countries have their peoples inured to the old diplomacy where a lot of talk and not much else happens. So the doubled efforts in the myth-making around the Anchorage summit and Trump’s meetings with Euro and Ukrainian leaders reveal the same old unhinged desire to set the stage, tell the history, while Trump is out there making it. If they get it wrong again it’s just another data point among many of their failing as a political class.

As the commonwealth peoples once again become serfs, Americans enjoy increasing freedom.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/08/19/uk-apple-backdoor-data-privacy-gabbard/

No one really cares what people from subordinate protectorates think, anyways.

The censors and their cheerleader finally fall off.

I don't know if I'm understanding you. Are you thinking there is a physical mechanism for consciousness within us, and we would be able to see it if our physical senses pointed inward?

Not only that but all mental and physical phenomena.

Firstly, so what if I made them up? We are speaking about principles, and setting laws. You think we don't need to consider what might happen?
Secondly, these scenarios *have* all happened, at least partially. So this whole talking point of "imagined scenarios" or whatever is garbage. They are realistic scenarios, you just don't like them because they show the flaw of an absolutist position on speech.

We have seen them. Socrates put to death because he corrupted the youth. Julian Assange jailed for leaking top secret info that embarrassed the government. Dissidents jailed for opposing the draft during WW1, based on the analogy that they were yelling fire in a crowded theater. Even the judge who came up with that dictum came to regret doing so.

These aren’t principles. They’re excuses. I don’t like them for the reasons I stated: they’re used to justify censorship.

I want the freedom to state any opinion, or good faith reporting. But yes, I am quite happy for the government to limit other speech e.g. say I can't claim a product is safe for human consumption when I know it isn't.

And there we have it. The problem is if you give them the power to decide what you can or cannot say, or anyone else, you don’t get what you want. You’ve effectively given them your freedom. You only get what they allow you to have.

The illusory aspects of consciousness is the result of how little information it gives about ourselves, the body. For instance our senses largely point outwards, towards the world, so I am unable to see what is going on behind my eyes. The periphery is so limited that I am completely unaware of what is going on inside my body save for the few and feint feelings it sometimes offers.

If that conscious periphery gave us enough information about the body I’m sure consciousness wouldn’t be a such a mystery, and ideas like panpsychism wouldn’t even be entertained.

So I have put it to you that you are not engaging with the problems with absolute free speech and gave three examples to illustrate the problems.

Your response is to...just straight up ignore the examples. Again. And just imply again that any restriction on speech must be about the government deciding what views are allowed.

If you aren't going to engage with the points, why are you on a discussion forum?

You gave three examples of speech you fear, ones you completely made up I might add. Then you finished it off with the “yelling fire in a crowded theater“ canard, which was used as a legal dictum to justify jailing critics of the First World War. It’s a good reminder that people will imagine scenarios where censorship could possibly be justified in order to justify jailing dissent.

I’m not sure why you refuse to answer the question. Do you want the government to decide what you can say or read?

Michael, Amadeus, me, Mijin, others - all totally different people who take radically different approaches on other issues, and who are all able to articulate complex ideas - all of us have said the same things in response to you.

There is something wrong with your position. You may still be right. None of us can see it. (Has anyone? It’s kind of stoic in a sense, is that what you are trying to say?). But nothing you are saying makes sense to anyone else.

That should give you some pause.

That’s right, I’m the only person who has ever made such arguments—ever, as far as I can tell. I’m not surprised people disagree with it because they’ve been believing the opposite for their whole lives. And their beliefs give them the false sense that they have some sort of linguistic power over others. Why would you want to lose that?

That, to me, is why you’re employing the bandwagon fallacy, as others have already. You think it does something to me; maybe it makes me feel lonely over here all alone. But it doesn’t. And it doesn’t do your little group any favors when you have to resort to such efforts.

Me slapping my hand across your face. That is not an effect in the world until your face resists my hand and your brain makes that slapping sound and sensation for you to enjoy as your own experience.

You are saying my slapping you across your face did not cause you to feel and hear a slap. You are saying your own brain caused these things and it is fully up to your free self to feel the slap, and/ or slap me back. Me, I am utterly not responsible for what happens in your experience.

That is what you are saying. Whether you like it or not.

Of course, that’s not what I’m saying. As already indicated, blows like a slap transfer enough force to move and cause changes in the body, so much so to cause a litany of effects, including causing someone to lose consciousness, to bruise, to cut their lip, which in turn can lead to subsequent behaviors. I’m saying words do not have enough momentum, force, potential energy, and so on, to cause any such changes, and thus cannot lead to subsequent actions and behaviors.

That you’d have to resort to such a false analogies and other fallacies should give you some pause. How can you be so obstinate and unreflective?

All you have to do is tell me what parts of my body you can change and move with articulated sounds and marks on paper. Once doing so you can describe how these changes result in different actions and behaviors. For now, how is your theory any different than believing in telekinesis and sorcery? After all, you believe it so you ought to know your reasons for doing so.

Of course it’s possible they spent about $7 million on the campaign without realizing that pairing the “Good Genes” slogan with a blonde, blue-eyed white woman might draw attention from the woke—because, as I’m sure you will agree, the woke are always so sensible and discreet.

If those phenotypes are the first things that come to mind when you hear the phrase “good genes” then you’re the problem to begin with. To me it was obvious they were pointing to the other parts of her body, especially the one’s she’s known for. This discrepancy and the racism inherent to the woke backlash is what makes it so stupid, and evil.

Your critique of “wokeism” focuses on certain highly visible activist actions and social media flashpoints, whereas I’m more interested in the underlying intellectual currents that can, at least in principle, inform fairer treatment of others, without inevitably leading to the authoritarian excesses you’re concerned about.

It is the intellectual currents that inform their treatment of others, and that treatment manifests into the highly visible actions and social media flashpoints we’ve seen too many times, and the countless ones we haven’t seen.

As I see it the necessary mental segregation required to understand and believe these currents begets actual segregation, such as race or sexuality-based “affinity graduations”, or diversity hiring. Perhaps their premises are too nationalistic and racialist to lead anywhere else. So I’m not sure it’s even possible to inform fairer treatment of others in principle.