The Exigent Duality
Video Medley - 18:36 CST, 10/30/20 (Sniper)
Excellent analysis here from Vee; I'm sure Ted Cruz has interviewed drug addicts on the stand who have more logical answers than Jack Dorsey! "Can Twitter impact elections?" "No." "Then why bother suppressing anything?" "Because we have policies."

It's interesting that Vee sees this situation as a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, when in reality it affirms that position.

More than anyone, anarcho-capitalists understand that corporations can be evil-- that's why it's so important to not charter a monopoly-on-force apparatus to begin with: like moths to flames, sociopaths will find a way to co-opt it one way or the other, and you'll have done all the hard work for them! Which is exactly what we're seeing with these social media companies swinging elections.

Albeit, I think he has more of a problem with the "selective an-caps": I've listened to him long enough to know that he highly values logical consistency, versus double standards and hypocrisy.

Setting that abstract, philosophical debate aside and going back to our present reality, he and I might also disagree about the law itself: I'm not convinced the protection needs to be removed-- rather, I think the existing law needs to be enforced: the social media companies should be made to make a choice-- are they newspapers, or public squares / communication media? Right now they are skirting around that decision because the law is not even being applied.

No matter which route they would take, major internal reforms would be required to become compliant: if they were to go the newspaper route, then they could be sued, and would cease to be social media web sites at all-- whereas if they went the public square / communication media route, then the phone company analogy would come into play, and they wouldn't be able to control what people can or can not post, provided the content itself isn't illegal.

I'd be fine with either one: letting them have their cake and eat it too is what bothers me.

Changing notes, this Paul Joseph Watson video is predictably great, as all of his content is.

It's possible for two groups to have incompatible values. I'm seemingly one of the only people empathetic enough to be able to put myself into everyone's shoes: hardcore Muslims and hardcore Christians can not coexist in the same society without irresolvable, non-negotiable conflicts. The only sensible solution is for them to just live in different places! Not only is there nothing wrong with that, but it'd actively be a good thing. They can still engage in trade, even as separate countries.

On a related note, I fundamentally don't get why people are so afraid of being called names-- because I think that's a huge reason why the average individual doesn't hold more sensible positions. Styx recently said that he was diagnosed with "Oppositional Defiant Disorder as a child, while apparently years ago he also explained that he is an Aspie.

It invokes that one scientist's view-- I can't recall his name at the moment-- that in one contrarian way of thinking, Asperger's is the next evolutionary stage of humans: "it's not what you say, it's what they hear"-- fuck that! Listen to the actual freaking words coming out of my mouth! Aspies aren't consumed with the need for tribalism and acceptance, so they quite often see things how they actually are.

Back to Mr. Watson, one of my myriad worries if Cameltoe becomes President is that she'll import hundreds of thousands of immigrants from third-world, low-IQ populations, and that it will-- daily basis-- make it unsafe to walk around in the already-tenuous Murderapolis area: sort of like that Somali guy who horrifyingly threw a child over a third-story railing at the Mall of America a few years ago, but more widespread.

I'm by no means saying all Somalis or people from the third world are bad: they should all be vetted as individuals, based on their own merits. But in general, I'd rather be importing people from Norway, Japan, or South Korea than Zimbabwe, Ecuador, or Nigeria.

On a lighter note, this is interesting to look back on. Where in the body of natural law or Constitution does it say "senior citizens have the right to do laundry 'in peace'?" Hah! And what about the senior citizens who liked the games? Or best yet, what about the actual right of a private property owner to put whatever the hell kind of machine they want, into their own building, without armed government goons showing up to break their knee caps?

To the news station's credits, they did squeeze a kid's opinion in there-- which was more rational than the adults', by and large! "People would just be out there smoking weed!"