Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Filing Room/to file/2019"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 750: Line 750:
* https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-new-york-city-stopped-building-subways - another corner of the train-to-auto transition story
* https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-new-york-city-stopped-building-subways - another corner of the train-to-auto transition story
* https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-largest-landowners-in-us/
* https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-largest-landowners-in-us/
===6 (Sun)===
* https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/10/outrage-budget-wealthy-article-struggling.html - I agree that context (in this case, cost-of-living) is important, but still: why $400/month on clothes?
* https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/1/1889299/-Response-to-the-Amber-Guyger-verdict-offers-painful-glimpse-into-white-supremacy-s-widespread-impact

Revision as of 18:22, 6 October 2019


04 (Fri)

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91_5OOmK1TQ
    • comment: "First of all, in a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be X (insects), you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), you can have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles), you can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting contest (some flatworms), you can have males be males because they were born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died (parrotfish and clownfish), you can have males look and act like females because they are trying to get close enough to actual females to mate with them (cuttlefish, bluegills, others), or you can be one of thousands of sexes (slime mold, some mushrooms.) Oh, did you mean humans? Oh ok then. You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y. You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice - effing - versa. Don't use science to justify your bigotry. The world is way too weird for that shit."

07 (Mon)

09 (Wed)

10 (Thu)

11 (Fri)

13 (Sun)

15 (Tue)

16 (Wed)

20 (Sun)

21 (Mon)

23 (Wed)

28 (Mon)

29 (Tue)

31 (Thu)


01 (Fri)

02 (Sat)

03 (Sun)

04 (Mon)

05 (Tue)

06 (Wed)

09 (Sat)

10 (Sun)

14 (Thu)

15 (Fri)

17 (Sun)

18 (Mon)

19 (Tue)

20 (Wed)

23 (Sat)

26 (Tue)

27 (Wed)


3 (Sun)

4 (Mon)

5 (Tue)

6 (Wed)

7 (Thu)

8 (Fri)

9 (Sat)

10 (Sun)

12 (Tue)

13 (Wed)

14 (Thu)

15 (Fri)

18 (Mon)

19 (Tue)

20 (Wed)

  • Pope Francis on gender (in Amoris Laetitia):
    • "Yet another challenge is posed by the various forms of an ideology of gender that “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family. This ideology leads to educational programmes and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time”[15]. It is a source of concern that some ideologies of this sort, which seek to respond to what are at times understandable aspirations, manage to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised. It needs to be emphasized that “biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated”. On the other hand, “the technological revolution in the field of human procreation has introduced the ability to manipulate the reproductive act, making it independent of the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. In this way, human life and parenthood have become modular and separable realities, subject mainly to the wishes of individuals or couples”. It is one thing to be understanding of human weakness and the complexities of life, and another to accept ideologies that attempt to sunder what are inseparable aspects of reality. Let us not fall into the sin of trying to replace the Creator. We are creatures, and not omnipotent. Creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created."

23 (Sat)

26 (Tue)

27 (Wed)

29 (Fri)

30 (Sat)


5 (Fri)

7 (Sun)

9 (Tue)

10 (Wed)

11 (Thu)

13 (Sat)

14 (Sun)

15 (Mon)

18 (Thu)

20 (Sat)

21 (Sun)

22 (Mon)

23 (Tue)

26 (Fri)

27 (Sat)

28 (Sun)

30 (Tue)


01 (Wed)

03 (Fri)

04 (Sat)

06 (Mon)

07 (Tue)

11 (Sat)

14 (Tue)

15 (Wed)

18 (Sat)

19 (Sun)

20 (Mon)

21 (Tue)

22 (Wed)

25 (Sat)

26 (Sun)

28 (Tue)

I think the problem here is that there is... a Spectrum of Understanding, when it comes to political matters like war.

At one end, there are those of us who understand how incredibly wasteful and stupid it is. We have always rejected it. Most of us are probably even aware that modern warfare is really just a tool that the powerful use in their efforts to collect and retain power, and not something that benefits us at all.

At the other end, of course, are people who respond positively on a gut level to words like "America", "freedom", "patriotism", "soldier", and so on -- and these are the people who buy into the "protect our freedom"-style of emotional appeal.

I suppose it's possible that an argument like the one in that article might get through to a few of them, but (a) it seems aimed more at people like us who question our beliefs, and (b) will it sway enough, even if all of them were somehow exposed to it?

29 (Wed)

31 (Fri)


1 (Sat)

3 (Mon)

4 (Tue)

5 (Wed)

6 (Thu)

8 (Sat)

10 (Mon)

13 (Thu)

16 (Sun)

17 (Mon)

19 (Wed)

20 (Thu)

21 (Fri)

24 (Mon)

27 (Thu)

29 (Sat)

30 (Sun)


02 (Tue)

04 (Thu)

07 (Sun)

08 (Mon)

09 (Tue)

10 (Wed)

12 (Fri)

15 (Mon)

17 (Wed)

18 (Thu)

19 (Fri)

23 (Tue)

24 (Wed)

25 (Thu)

28 (Sun)

29 (Mon)

30 (Tue)


01 (Thu)

03 (Sat)

05 (Mon)

06 (Tue)

08 (Thu)

09 (Fri)

10 (Sat)

11 (Sun)

12 (Mon)

13 (Tue)

15 (Thu)

16 (Fri)

17 (Sat)

19 (Mon)

21 (Wed)

23 (Fri)

24 (Sat)

26 (Mon)

27 (Tue)

28 (Wed)

29 (Thu)

30 (Fri)


04 (Wed)

07 (Sat)

08 (Sun)

09 (Mon)

11 (Wed)

12 (Thu)

14 (Sat)

15 (Sun)

16 (Mon)

17 (Tue)

21 (Sat)

22 (Sun)

24 (Tue)

25 (Wed)

26 (Thu)

27 (Fri)

28 (Sat)

29 (Sun)


1 (Tue)

2 (Wed)

3 (Thu)

4 (Fri)

From someone who for now prefers anonymity:

There's a standard order of operations for asserting a new norm in a culture. First, you craft your hiijack, your initial argument (for the sake of using personal knowledge, this hijack is "all lives matter" applied to the culture of liberalism). You use it to create something that ostensibly agrees with what the culture currently holds to be true, and will be accepted but in truth is a hook for a line of thought that lines up with what you want the culture to hold true, then you go full-bore saturation fire with it. You ensure everyone in the culture you want to alter has heard it. Those who agree and accept it can be ignored, those who argue are to be moved on from immediately to new pastures, but noted for later.

Once you have your initial spread of agree and disagree, you profile the groups who disagree, and label them all as one group. (In the example of all lives matter, they were profiled as "dangerous radicals" and "boatrockers" or "black supremacists" towards the end). You create a false camaraderie between them as surely as you push the rest of the culture into rejecting them by labeling them as what the culture hates, then once you have them all in one place, you constantly barrage them with memetic hijacks, small arguments, and incidents designed to frustrate them into violating some arbitrary standard of conduct, which you use to widen the gap between them and the culture you intend to hijack.

At the same time, you explore tensions within the groups you have herded together and plant infiltrators to play up existing tensions by acting out parts (virtual blackface was part of this) and use it to cause infighting, seeing which groups you can push back towards the hiijacked culture and which groups you can isolate entirely. Once they're infighting and dwindling, no-one in the hijacked culture will really care anymore, having been saturated with misrepresentations and caricatures of the discourse that present the groups you pushed out who objected to your hijack as totally unreasonable, and will have been softened into agreeing with you entirely.

FYI, twitter is literally perfect for this kind of culture hijack operation.

5 (Sat)

6 (Sun)