US Republicans "and co" are LARPing as 'World Leaders'.
That - I think - is a pretty and decently true statement. Even so one that is pivotal and significant. It
is thereby a statement that 'gives' the truth - thus being a 'kind' of statement that entails both: Truths
and Lies - but is not to be confused with the 'truths' that produce it.
What I mean by that is, that ... there so are explanations without explaining anything. Sortof. We can say
for instance: "The Earth is a(n oblate) sphere(oid)" - and that statement then, in turn, can be used to
explain things. In part those things would be the understanding that produced it in the first place. Like,
"because the earth is a sphere - the shadows on the equator are shorter than those further north or south
respectively - it's complicated, sortof" - though initially the sentence would have be inversed, like:
"because the shadows further north are longer than around the equator - we may calculate the circumference
of the planet". Such and such. Because, yea ... if it were flat the shadows were still longer up north -
it's complicated - such and such.
So can we also explain the general theory of relativity in simple terms, but ... those simple terms were not
what made it a successful theory.
"Good" simple statements are yet transparent enough, so that one can assert their deeper meaning, basically,
though one might say that that is optional - and hence, the simple statements are practically insufficient -
generally speaking.
Gnosticism is naturally required to apply the same standards on the Bible. The challenge eventually being that
of reverse engineering the implied reason of simple statements we'd otherwise take "for the Gospel". Though
the situation is also ... more complicated than being just down to that.
Another thing one needs to consider is what we may call: "Word Economy". That is - how many words are required,
at the minimum, to explain something. And beyond that: To which degree. "In the Old School" - the ability to
capture complex conditions in simple statements has been equivocated to 'wisdom'. The greater quality of such
statements then were how universal they are. The greater the quality of those statements, the less dependent
they are on extensive elaboration. A problem then being present, however, when high quality statements share
the same space with low quality statements. So would there be phrases such as "pull yourself up by your
bootstraps" or "spare the rod, spoil the child" - that more so speak to a very particular slice of the human
experience; And generally shouldn't be taken as universal truths; As otherwise they produce a very one sided
world-view.
So, to return to the initial statement - a few things need to be added to clarify; As, some who consider themselves
US Republicans or "co" might disagree. Though, it might be worth questioning whether or not we actually care.
But sure thing: Being more nuanced - the story is this, that the true LARPers regarding the statement being made,
are "these influencers". Colloquially called: "Dipshit"s. And I just made it a thing - in as far as I'm capable of
it. Like, I don't know who it was - it's all more or less part of the same amorphous blob - but revolving around
the conservative meltdown over Target selling Pride-Month related clothing (OMG!) someone was like: "Violence is
the only thing they understand!". I'm sure he/she/it/they didn't mean literal violence - wink wink (right?) - at
least that's what they'd say I'm sure - but what clearly vibes in there is this self-entitled sense of: "We are the
ones that say what's right or wrong - and we'll threaten with violence to demand that respect - like, who needs
democracy?". And everyone who so joins this amorphous blob, knowingly or not - ends up part of this very LARPy
bullshit - that is furthermore acted upon by the politicians in charge. Now you or they can say that this is not so,
but ... it really is ... so.
What we further have here - is an instance of "Society in the Abstract". Like so, the story as put forth would imply
some connections between the individual layers or members or strata of the "movement". Something that coordinates
its efforts - maintains a strategy - that sort of thing. Respectively would 'they' claim, I'm sure, that these links
do not exist. So would the influencers just point out problems, some of which the politicians do not respond to,
here and there a criticism will be uttered, while yet getting people to vote for these politicians, based on the
platform that they (the influencers) provide. And every politician that's upset about the wokes and the CRT and
the cancel culture and stuff - is in that regard simply a "pick me politician" hinting at the influencers general
narrative - while, when challenged, arguing that their own platform isn't THAT.
"Society in the Abstract" to me further means as much as ... that we tend to produce simplified statements to capture
a more complicated and nuanced reality. So, when Republicans say "woke" - it's the exact same thing. "The Gay Agenda",
"AntiFa", "Socialists" - being similar in that regard. Being all buzzwords that refer to a few simplified statements
that roughly capture an interpretation of what the left is about.
Similarly; And that came up in that torturous debate between Vaush and what'shisname that I shared previously; we tend
to ascribe agency to things that generally speaking don't have it. And ... I'm sure it isn't as hard to understand -
and as difficult to decypher - as that dude made it out to be. When we say: "The market wants X and Y" or "the Economy
does X and Y" - we certainly do not mean that the market or the economy has free will or autonomy or agency as the
statement taken as a literal would imply - but that the forces that are implied do act to that extent.
A pretty good example to highlight that further is "modern A.I.". In as far as we've made it, it is built of things
that do not have agency; And is ultimately just a network of very simple mechanisms. There are a variety of videos
out there highlighting that. Ontop of that, when it comes to the market - there's also a human factor involved. It
maybe doesn't amount to much, and to that extent there's 'game theory'. Which means as much as that any system will
evolve towards a state of equilibrium.
But here's the thing - as for the human component: If there's a thing - a project, an idea, a product, a blueprint
or what have you - the first layer, as per our "system", are investors, or so: Capital owners, which get to decide
what to make of it. As they have the means to do so. These might say "yes" or "no" - and as of how many say yes -
the thing will enter the system. On the other side then there's the consumer - who also says "yes" or "no" - and some
might say, that that determines what the market "wants". However. Let's get back to the first layer.
So, there are investors that are looking at a thing - and in as far as all of them are incetivized to make profit,
the first thing they'll look at is: Whether or not it's profitable. This, we might say, creates a 'first level bias'
- due to which we can say that the market, first of all, is interested in profit. Which then means, that whatever it
is that the market 'wants' - there are things that it can and things that it cannot want - so to speak.
When we then talk of things that we would actually want - we often get to hear of innovation. What it means, in market
terms, is that some dude or dudette invents a cool gadget or figures something out that is desirable enough to potentially
be profitable - which eventually also implies that someone figures out how something that wasn't profitable could become
profitable. So, we here then have a meta-level bias ... also governed by profit ... with, however, the potential to be
actually useful.
Being however at any relevant instance governed by profit - it is justified to for instance call it greedy. Or to say
that "it" is only interested in profit. That "it" doesn't actually care about what 'the people' actually want or need.
That the employees are effectively enslaved - exploited - that sort of thing.
To then say, however, that it is the consumer who decides - that the market will adjust to what demand there is - is
in that regard ... rather insulting. Well, it certainly will adjust to what demand there is - as per the principles of
game theory at least, in as far as it is a true factor of the system - but to suggest that we aren't getting screwed
over at every possible step of the way ... cannot actually be justified as by the cold analytical understanding of
this system.
Well - maybe there are exceptions. But if there were enough of those - we ... would have a different system to speak
of.
And that's that!
And so - yea, sure ... "the LGBTQIA+ Agenda" is to "trans" your kids, or make them gay - though more so to the point
to help them understand themselves better in case they are ... trans or gay ... rather than forcing cis or straight
people to be trans or gay. But well, you ... probably can't expect conmen to be straight with you about the actual
nuances of the shit they spew.