It got worse. We adapted parameters to try to compensate. You didn’t do anything wrong. You’ve just not yet implemented continuous improvement.

Do a thematic series “Portraits of a would be murderer”.

deleted by creator

if my primary vote literally does not matter, why would I ever vote in their primary again?

Exactly. When one primary candidate won in 2016, the party nominated the other candidate. Your primary vote doesn’t matter. SCOTUS even agreed with you, stating that if one doesn’t like how private organizations run their primaries then they shouldn’t participate in them.

Why would anyone ever vote in the primary again?

They were gay children then professionals and furries. These hackers have been breathing operational security their whole lives. You probably find them when some Morpheus dude in assless chaps offers you two different brands of poppers.

Why does Defense, the largest trillion, not simply eat the other billions?

The example I like for this is the US federal budget.

$5m is about 15 good homes.

$1b is about 3000 good homes.

We don’t deal with things more expensive than a good home. And, 3000 is already a hard number to envision.

$1b is a remarkably hard number to wrap one’s head around.

Was that Men in Black, 1997, Agent K or On Liberty, 1859, John Stuart Mill?

The fuck cares. I started with Picard and Asimov.

Individuals can be smart. But, a large group is always mediocre, an average. Small groups are the sweet spot for greatness.

It’s human nature to overestimate that which favors us. We each overestimate how smart we are and the how smart the group is. Much in human history is based on not caring about the odds. Even Hans Solo doesn’t want to know.

In the situation you present, very shallow propaganda is quite effective if the target can be saturated with it. Another example, humans enjoy simplicity. A false dichotomy can be maintained for millennia: It’s current governance or worst fears manifest.

I regurgitated four basic books and a movie reference. Read these ones:

In The Engineering of Consent, 1947, Bernays described the theory of modern propaganda developed and implemented primarily by Nazi Germany. In Manufacturing Consent, 1988, Herman and Chomsky describe how the principles have been implemented in US mass media for economic control.

Since 1988 we’ve had mass computing, the internet, and now applications of AI. The history and structure will give lived experiences roots and facilitate communication.

deleted by creator

I’ll stop fucking around then.

Corpses? Proton Mail.

There’s so much more possible before the one set of idiots or another makes a bloody mess inevitable. Your merit assigns responsibility, our situation urgency. Please, get to in-person group study Capital, where you will excel. Then, accept the offer to a small team with operational security.

I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions. This possibility is important, because much in human existence is based upon hope without any real understanding of the odds. Indeed, we are all—Black and white alike—ill in the same way, mortally ill. But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect.

Revolutionary suicide does not mean that I and my comrades have a death wish; it means just the opposite. We have such a strong desire to live with hope and human dignity that existence without them is impossible. When reactionary forces crush us, we must move against these forces, even at the risk of death. We will have to be driven out with a stick.

if you want to take the more radical forms of direct action while still staying relatively safe yourself, you need broad popular support.

Yesterday you said you needed a good idea to gum up the works.

Is it a transcendental condition of a “medium-term world you’d wish to live in” that the majority wisely chose it?

If it is then I can understand why you, specifically, would be in need. My friend is a philosophy professor seemingly stuck in an endless loop of mediocrity mucking with this. It’s contrary to the vast majority of human history, perhaps some divine fallacy and privilege difficult to rationalize today.

But, if you’ve rationalized that a minority will choose wisely and another minority will choose correctly but not wisely, then I think you don’t need broad popular support and good ideas. That’s what happens afterwards. Today, we need to be better than popular and good.

Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?

Expediency asks the question - is it politic?

Vanity asks the question - is it popular?

But conscience asks the question - is it right?

And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.

What do you need to make a difference?

If voting just makes it worse slower, then what can We the People do to make it better?

That is a stupid take

Take it up with MLK.

I can see where your chain of logic lies

Incredible feat considering you didn’t ask me shit.

I assumed the rest continued in ignorance and bad faith.

I respect your agency in your learning process and assume personal wisdom.

I learned very little useful studying the Bible and philosophy by myself. Some subjects are just that way, such as Capital. And, no one comes just wanting to learn the material. All want an opportunity for praxis.

deleted by creator

Well, privacy can be infringed as a motivator after tax and campaign finance reform. Prison is a bigger motivator.

Taxes, government ownership, or communal ownership. For example, tax all wealth above $100m at 100%.

If I were in a position of power I’d hopefully willingly give up some privacy. But, no law can sit in judgement, let alone something so simple.

If humans constantly tempted by wealth and power, who then fall victim to it, have their right to privacy infringed, then they’ll go right on feeding their addictions, no matter the cost of maintenance of privacy?