Saturday, November 7, 2020

Woke Mobs On Internet

I've seen some pretty nasty attacks lately and I guess it'll only get worse. Imo, the correct answer to an accusation of any  -ism or similar nonsense, should be, "F*** you get lost!" As long as you aren't breaking the law, you should be fine. Also, anyone taking part in these witch hunts, especially those who consider themselves Christians, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, though I doubt they have any shame left. 

As for the rest, I hope my readers won't get blackpilled. Remember, what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger!


  1. Salman Rushdie wrote many years ago that he was against attacks against the promoters of ideas and for attacks against the ideas themselves.

    Mostly I'm in favour of this viewpoint to the extent that other people follow it.

    The problem is that the de facto leveller culture that has grown up around the Internet has led people to believe their role as potential shock troops increases their value.

    And so we now have people on the Internet who believe their role is not to engage in discussion at all, but instead to invoke some kind of visceral feeling that causes a desired amount of dread or panic in the target.

    Everyone in America seems to fancy themselves a Cormac McCarthy character these days.

    The truth is that these people aren't really winning at life, and that their only remaining tactics that work are to draw together their resources not to win, but instead to avoid the kinds of losses that would force them to re-evaluate their lives.

    Their favourite tactic appears to be the Point-and-Shriek Campaign which is an individually targeted form of witch hunt. The Point-and-Shriek Campaign gives them numbers in the form of massive numbers of mediocrities who may then drag down someone who's achieved something they resent.

    And so my preferred tactic for responding to a Point-and-Shriek Campaign is to use the Agree-and-Amplify move to disturb the effectiveness of their tactic.

    For instance, go ahead, someone call me a racist ...

    It's possibly a fair cop given that I've just pointed out elsewhere that white urban Socialists drive away other white people, and so it could be implied that I'm racist toward white people.

    But what does calling me this "racist" word have to do with the fundamental truth being told, that these Socialists implement defective economics, destructive social policy, and are generally so awful to live around that people regardless of race eventually decide they don't want to?

    So yes, I hate living around white Socialists, and I'm saying that as a white person who used to believe that was entirely acceptable and that I could negotiate with these people.

    I'm willing to accept that I was wrong in those beliefs, but fortunately indulging in certain beliefs such as those didn't cost me something more than someone believing they can hang a name on me, however inaccurate it may be.

    The real truth though?

    I prefer to deny them turf while turning their beloved little Socialist spaces into ideological war zones.

    Underneath every Socialist's skin is a Minarchist waiting to be lifted out!

    Is that a little bit too "Vietnam Era" for some people? :-)

  2. People like this may be not winning at life, but they sure appear to be winning "culture wars".

    They are also ready to fight while the other side prefers to "lose with dignity", afraid of being called a name...

  3. Yes, "the other side" thinks that the goal is to get these people to agree with them and perhaps even to like them rather than containing the spread of the infective memetic agents.

    Oh, but look, they support lockdowns! How useful. :-)

    I remember Lord McAlpine shortly before he died got a court decision in his favour against a journalist who very likely made up his story as an outright form of libel ...

    What Lord McAlpine did was he let him go, figuring that since he was a dying man, he didn't have the energy to pursue anything anymore against the journalist.

    I've always disagreed with that decision.

    He should have made sure the journalist bastard would be paying out for the rest of the journalist's life.

    You can't break the cycles of bad behaviour until you break a few people practising them.

    But while we're on the subject of being called names ...

    Someone go ahead and say it, I dare you. :-)

  4. People of the Right often lack healthy bloodlust.

    As for your 2nd point,

    Hint: it's not women who cost Mr Trump his presidency.

  5. Ah, but look more carefully: that graphic was for the 2016 election which Trump won. :-)

    The 2020 election hasn't been finalised despite the musings of various pundits, politicians, and propagandists.

    Meanwhile, some people in Florida are listening to the whinging of the mobs ahead of the inevitable: Florida Governor DeSantis wants to amend the "stand your ground" laws to make it easier for people to shoot looters and rioters in defence of property.

    It's not very popular in Miami, but it's YUGELY popular up here where we are now.

  6. He actually did better with women in 2020 than in 2016, but yes, the election results are still a mess so we'll see!

    As for the law, you mention, I can imagine that it is popular, after all those riots;)