5
ShrikeDeCil 5 points ago +5 / -0

"Look over here, not over there!"

Filler is just filler. But a distraction has to be "Big enough" to explain why you aren't covering xyz. And. Any random filler can be pumped into a distraction ... just add enough hot air.

You have to first really grok: It's deliberate , not casual bias. But planned malice aforethought.

2
ShrikeDeCil 2 points ago +2 / -0

It isn't just 'covert', it's the step over the line from "infiltrating" to "instigating".

Under the usual rule "Rules for thee, but not for me", law enforcement (and particularly undercovers) can say and do things that are directly a crime by a citizen. And since the Patriot Act, 'infiltrating terrorist orgs' has been a key focus.

Little did we know that every single organization vaguely right-of-center is considered a key place to infiltrate. And, as the FBI were mostly white-collar-criminal keyboard warriors to begin with, working the keyboard is a natural. It's boggling to the mind. If this point seems particularly boggling, research 'arms bust' and 'bomb scare', and look closely for how it was discovered/thwarted precisely .Things like "And then the FBI informant sold the rocket-mockup" or "fake grenades" is a recurring theme in the main stories. But several of these cases fall apart ... because the "informant" started the entire idea themselves.

Several years back on 4chan (of course) it was pointed out just how much of the trouble is instigated by 'posts that practically glow in the dark' they're so off-the-main topic of whatever the thread is. The particularly vile racists, the particularly NSFW links to off-site, etc.

To the point of IP tracing and tracking people down ... to find out that they were indeed coming from IP's associated with the FBI. (and overseas) Across a lot of forums.

So now most any call to direct action is presumed to be the work of the Feds. Because things like Jan 6 end up with something like 10-of-18 of one of the group being 'Fed involved'.

They have no fear of being charged, ever, with calls for armed insurrection, intimidation with firearms, property harassment etc - because that's their actual job.

To get fellow travellers to step over the line.

4
ShrikeDeCil 4 points ago +4 / -0
  1. Jan 6 protests had high. involvement of Feds. One main group, something like 10-of-18 end up being Fed-involved (not all strictly 'Federal Agent', but 'informants' and 'confidential sources' etc.) A fair chunk of the push for the Jan 6 tour of the Capital (oh, I mean 'break in') -> Fed involvement.

  2. Enter a "grassroots" effort to protest the treatment of the Jan 6 guys. There were weeks of pushes to get attendees by people that sounded mighty glowie.

  3. Protest ... with little-to-no actual grassroots attendees. And. Group of 20-30yo males in jorts and MIB sunglasses. Short, tight hair. Acting in concert. Non-political shirts.

Screams "Possible glowies!".

1
ShrikeDeCil 1 point ago +1 / -0

The second Smith is Special Agent Smith to you ... wait a sec...

1
ShrikeDeCil 1 point ago +1 / -0

Reporters report.

Journalists tell a story.

Journalists don't need facts, and are quite upset when called reporters.

2
ShrikeDeCil 2 points ago +2 / -0

Since these injections are officially recognized to operate by "reducing symptoms", not by killing the viral load, this makes injectees carriers.

  1. Does COMPANY plan to continue the masks/distance/homework policies ad infinitum?

  2. Does COMPANY plan, instead, to reduce the safety precautions ... and thus knowingly place our customers at risk?

2
ShrikeDeCil 2 points ago +2 / -0

Screw that. Killing the small companies allows "100% Amazon/Wallmart/Target" ...

Big Government always loves Big Business.

Because the Communism can hide behind the Fascism.

1
ShrikeDeCil 1 point ago +1 / -0

There was a patent filed (like sept of last year?) on secure crypto voting. (I seem to recall Trump mentioning it even).

The issue with computer voting is that there are people involved. All of the various 'failsafe' mechanisms aren't useful when the people running the election themselves are doing specifically prohibited shit. "Do not hook to internet!" ... hooked to net. "Do not use USB drives!" ... used USb drives ... etc.

So, fundamentally, even a 'theoretically pure' method has to overcome one key element.

I don't trust the effers involved in the process

Regaining trust is a very difficult process.

3
ShrikeDeCil 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'll add one point here (too).

Education/Common Core seems to have shifted the focus of the English side of education from "Analytical Reports" to "Persuasive Essays" as a core focus. It's fundamentally the same shift the press made: From being "reporters" to being the (more respected!) journalists. Where truthiness is key. Not Truth.

This seems totally irrelevant. But. Realize that that was one of the last vestiges of true dispassionate logic along the liberal arts "core path". You can manage to squeak through the math requirements enough to become credentialed ... without fundamentally respecting math/scientific method/logic.

4
ShrikeDeCil 4 points ago +4 / -0

There's a crucial point that needs to be wedged into this description. (Which I agree with, this is just a quibble.)

Humans learn via three primary routes: "An Elder said so", "The most compelling Narrative says...", and Logic.

Logic -- meaning dispassionate, rigorous analysis marching point-by-point -- is unfortunately, not needed to sustain a tribal culture, and is not very instinctual. "The Scientific Method" is, fundamentally, precisely a way to separate out "Elders" and "Narrative" and fiercely fight self-delusion in one's analysis.

But, precisely as you say, "Modern Science" has shifted to "The Elders say" and "The story is that..." without regards to personal observation is the key bit. That is, modern scientists don't practice the scientific method in the political arena.

My argument is actually even provable with nothing but the mask nuttiness. The flip-flopping, contradicting their own published expert opinions, and raw distain for their own rules (cameras off, masks off - camera on, masks on), etc.

7
ShrikeDeCil 7 points ago +7 / -0

Exactly. "Oh, well, going down to companies of 100 employees was on overreach, but the models predict it will go down fine if we make the limit 752 people. We can go to 100 next year."

5
ShrikeDeCil 5 points ago +5 / -0

When you see this sort of shit, it means there's already another like-minded scum lined up to take the job.

This is why you sometimes see resignations (Cuomo) and sometimes don't.

1
ShrikeDeCil 1 point ago +1 / -0

Has anyone performed tracebacks on Starlink? Interested in knowing how that is. Is it like cable having basically my address as the darn lookup for the IP?

1
ShrikeDeCil 1 point ago +1 / -0

Dealing with medical professionals, I push "Informed consent".

They're (at least some places) required to give adequate pro-con analysis of what they're proposing: informed consent.

"I'm not going to consent until I'm informed. Please list at least half of the FDA-know effects ... if I know more than you on this subject, I expect you to pay me what I would owe your corporate masters."

Ok, toned down a bit. But still. They can list the one or two top (clots, myocard) but the FDA has quite a list officially.

2
ShrikeDeCil 2 points ago +2 / -0

Excellent.

I'd push a tad "Who, precisely , do you report to? What's 'her' full name?"

And the "write it up" part - place urgency on that. The key point of the notary is to get a firm date into the record. I'd personally do the paperwork in triplicate and double up the 'dating' with postmarked letters...

5
ShrikeDeCil 5 points ago +5 / -0

If you're in a poll and this happens, demand to put your name on a written, signed list at the very least. "Somebody stole my vote, and I want this fact on the record!"

No, I don't expect that to end up working directly , but it's a route to have standing, and also a route to track the local poll problems.

Or: Stand 100 feet away (no interfering inside 100 feet is my understanding) with a sign "Making a list of people who were denied their vote!" Get signatures to this effect. Or maybe the sign "Anyone who had the slightest difficulties, come talk to me!"

2
ShrikeDeCil 2 points ago +2 / -0

People get locked into their pet beliefs, and begin "cheerleading for the team" behavior. The repetitive press reinforces this daily. The thing to fight (once you know they won't logic their way out of the daily slog) is things that are not currently in the press.

I mean, shouting facts at them gets nowhere: You're attempting an argument of logic with people that are lazily accepting the daily narrative from their trusted experts. You're down by two persuasive techniques before you even start. (Elders + Narrative).

My key piece is waiting for a comment (on any subject) where the person says "The press got that wrong". Everyone has their pet hobby, everyone knows the press sucks at covering it, everyone has a different opinion on even nominally "non-political" stuff. Pick that topic. This person cares about that topic.

Now, the one thing to point out is that the press just gave them a persuasive essay on that topic instead of an analytical report . There's most always some attempt to persuade about something as journalists have basically stopped "just reporting". Persuasive essays and analytical reports are fundamentally different things, you can tell one from the other if you sit down and watch any segment with a sheet of paper.

The press is so vested in lying with "truthy facts" that it's boggling, but cracking that first shell of "So ... what are they trying to convince me of in this story?" and getting people perform critical analysis on the press...

... It's really something you can't unsee. Really hard to watch the press after you really attempt to parse the details and do your own research in any direction whatsoever.

3
ShrikeDeCil 3 points ago +3 / -0

1000x this.

I'll add "credentialism"

Things like requiring a Masters of Education degree to teach kindergarten ... Now you have zillions of people egos all puffed out of all proportion with what they actually know about, well, anything.

1
ShrikeDeCil 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is my thought.

The key statistic will eventually be "Total deaths of people with at least one vaccination" (by percent) versus "Total deaths of people without".

If there's 30% or more unvaxxed (or so) anywhere , you have a pretty case-closed "WTF is this even doing then?" ... eventually

There's other possibilities of how the vaxx is problematic, but the studies aren't finished yet. Fertility rates? Causing long-term disorders instead of acute incidents? (Think: Blood clot disorder as opposed to a blood clot)

The couple pages of things suspected by the FDA officially seem to my non-medically-oriented eyes to have a lot of things that aren't even detected within 5 years of actual onset.

1
ShrikeDeCil 1 point ago +1 / -0

To "win" the Left has to go all the way to door-to-door confiscations/incarcerations. The list of reasons why are endless, but spelling them out explicitly is fundamentally glowie-fodder.

The D's might like to do 'state by state', but every semblance of the old-school 'state pride/patriotism' has long been stamped pretty fierce. It would be "twenty cities v everyone else" in no time flat. And the not-in-my-back-yardism has kicked all power generation, food, ... everything really far from the Deep Blue Cities.

2
ShrikeDeCil 2 points ago +2 / -0

"Since the CDC has re-defined the word 'Vaccine' to include weak palliative medicines, you may check 'Yes, I was vaccinated' if you've ever had any of the following ... Vitamin D, Zinc, ... ivermectin, ... malaria medications ....

21
ShrikeDeCil 21 points ago +22 / -1

Because that's the number they feel they can get "enough" to go along with it at.

It's pretty much a standard tactic to say "Only applies to companies with more than 50,000 employees" and five years later quietly shift to 25k, etc. and keep rolling.

view more: Next ›