The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 133
Classical Liberalism is in trouble. We can all see that. With it, the nations that have incorporated it as their operating model are also in trouble. We can all see that too. Today, post-liberal movements on both the Left and the putative Right see these problems and are calling for Classical Liberalism’s demise. But do they see the problems we face clearly and accurately? James Lindsay, host of the New Discourses Podcast, thinks they do not, and in this episode, he breaks down what they’re missing and the major problems Classical Liberalism faces as we make our way deeper into the twenty-first century. First, it’s under deliberate attack from an attempted global Communist Revolution. Second, we can’t defend it because we aren’t even clear about what it is. Third, three deep and important philosophical questions demand answering in order to carry the philosophy of Individual Rights and Liberty into our increasingly technological and digital age. Join him to break through the conceptual fog and to start facing the real problems threatening us and to turn away from fighting shadows.
Subscribe to the New Discourses Podcast on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, Rumble, Odysee, or by RSS.
Additional episodes of the New Discourses Podcast are available here.
23 comments
Hello Larry
I’m grateful for a reply like yours & the others really like 13 / Samuel.
”My teacher likened all the information in the universe to an ocean. How do you find the few drops in it that are actually important?”
In the truth era good meaningful statements like that worked and still do. Post truth’s algorithms send marxist sycophants to deny, and to litter the path along mad post truth at the touch of a button. Stands to reason that that the hermit with the torch will search long unless better ways to deal with all this are devised.
Take a Q like this example :
* Are people being Inhuman or Human by believing in a religion
It should not do anything usual should it. Its just another question and in the case of nearly all of us its of little consequence < TRUE. Not True for those who love taste its forbidden fruit like Richard Dawkins who appears to have told so many lies now that his position might ranks with the like of the third reich in terms of how they were 'running out of road rapidly' at a certain point.
* Are people being Inhuman or Human by believing in a religion
He cannot risk answering that definitively and will know its a type of check mate placement that would result is disgrace. Hes the sort of bloke to tough it out but he cannot answer that sensibly either way as his own gobby maladroit theory of everything style dictatorship has closed the doors and exposed him so. This phenomenon should be noted by anyone concerning whats going in the world today & the people who are posing as the good guys. A man can lie so many times that 'everywhere' in the matrix defaults to this.
Maybe James will pin Dawkins down with this Larry ?
Its going to happen one way or the other to that snide and disgrace of a Totalitarian.
Stephen Hicks seems to have overlooked the work of Hubbard.
This work contains the most workable and updated model for the “individual” that exists on Earth today. This can be extended back into the teachings from the Vedas, and the Buddha, but expand on those to give us more workable constructs.
I don’t consider Liberalism that much different from other -isms.
The reasons any -ism fails (in my opinion) are because 1) they are based on assumptions that aren’t true or workable; 2) they don’t take the inevitable threat of psychopathy into account; 3) they are too ignorant of the actual human condition.
“Classical liberalism” has been somewhat corrupted from its 1700s form, which was more Christian-oriented I believe. There may have also been a class aspect of it back then that has been diluted. This has to do with who would be qualified to be a voter. But its basic weaknesses seem to me to include:
1) The assumption that everyone has basically good intentions, and is reasonably smart and rational. This is not the true condition of Mankind today and never has been. On a filtered class basis, one can hope that a certain portion of humanity fits these qualities. But they don’t, either, according to vast experience.
2) They think criminals do what they do for explainable reasons, and can possibly be rehabilitated by eliminating those reasons. This is grossly not true of the psychopath or his henchmen.
3) They tend to believe the findings of “modern” science. Science currently has no workable concept of Soul or Spirit. Soul or Spirit is a basic component of the actual human condition; it cannot be successfully ignored.
Beyond this, the tolerance and intellectual flexibility of the liberal is useful and more sustainable than the slightly more petrified outlook of most conservatives. A liberal, in theory, is more willing to learn, and that is what is needed the most right now.
“Liberalism has failed because liberalism has succeeded. As it becomes fully itself, it generates endemic pathologies more rapidly and pervasively than it is able to produce Band-Aids and veils to cover them… what we face today is not a set of discrete problems solvable by liberal tools but a systemic challenge arising from a pervasive invisible ideology. The problem is not just in one program or application but in the operating system itself. It is almost impossible for us to conceive that we are in the midst of a legitimation crisis in which our deepest systemic assumptions are subject to dissolution.
“Taken to its logical conclusion, liberalism’s end game is unsustainable in every respect: it cannot perpetually enforce order upon a collection of autonomous individuals increasingly shorn of constitutive social norms, nor can it provide endless material growth in a world of limits…. If… the liberal project is ultimately self-contradictory and that it culminates in the twin depletions of moral and material reservoirs upon which it has relied, then we face a choice… We can either elect a future of self-limitation born of the practice and experience of self-governance in local communities, or we can back inexorably into a future in which extreme license coexists with extreme oppression.”
Patrick Deneen “Why Liberalism Failed” 2018
“Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence [because] the defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1978 ‘A World Split Apart’
“Liberalism has failed because liberalism has succeeded. As it becomes fully itself, it generates endemic pathologies more rapidly and pervasively than it is able to produce Band-Aids and veils to cover them… what we face today is not a set of discrete problems solvable by liberal tools but a systemic challenge arising from a pervasive invisible ideology”
Yes .. and although so aware i’d feel the exponent would nevertheless be shocked at the degree it has happened & with what variants.
And so theres a venue that discussed the matter too. An inversion of the same law of diminishing returns states that there is an end in sight if the solutions are drawn too close. The solutions happen to be etched in hidden symmetry that has been labeled ‘gnosticism’ and that mindscape not only isn’t commercial enough for 90% of visitors, its a davy jones lockers of cabalist secrets = one of the thought crimes is having the intelligence to model the situation.
It is considered VIRUS. Since this type of virus has a dynamical human nature its sought by dynamical human nature & ‘the spray’ is invariably ad hominem ridicule / some more charming than others. And some more curios than others since some anti virus dynamical humans need to ‘Transition’.
I’m suggesting YOU TRANSITION SUNSHINE
The new Solzhenitsyn is an algorithm that can keep up with cabalist algorithms & the anti virus was already written 20 years ago by
NEW ATHEISM.
That is just a bottom line that has to start somewhere since counter intuitively ( and when it comes to james lindsay on classical liberalism ) . I think James is absolutely right, but they only be one niche for classical liberalism to co-exist in / whence it would be a remaining spirit that symbolises our rights. One of the problems is that the elites simply do not operate any specific political system. In fact it is a belief they do that provide the first opaque mirror of the veil. NO – in reality EVERY POLITICAL SYSTEM known to humankind is lined up. If you will ? – please imagine big neat rows of RAM CARDS stretching many many yards in a large computer. Each of these memory banks containing a political system until every tyupe is represented. Then imagine its software i.e incorporating a digital threading system that is constantly updated / as of today has the setting where we are.
That FACT is not in the interest of a trivial matter such a a websites desire to stay away from the real problem because 90% cannot process abstract thought.
Am i pretending to know the solution NO
I just know that its impossible to understand what is going on concerning a globalist cabalist system which ( from its top line ) is not even ‘there’ to oppress us anymore because its algorithm is. This includes members of the local state who ( contrary to aforementioned ) are present. What ? persons representing the state ARE there after all ? YES- but if they are not there for ‘the people’ but are strict adherents to the algorithm what are those ‘servants’ ?
Look. there is civil war or not dependent on how these matters can be discussed or not. If i’m not mistaken the inability to deal with the abstract has a direct correlation to HATE – at least in terms of a knowable mappable this education friend ‘inlook’ on that directive of phenomenological hate.
YES ? NO ?
Hide in the clam shell ? Listen to neo facist dawkins et al who as well as developing thought crime developed their anti virus ?
I don’t know the answers – i know the phenomena & as someone exceptional in that field i’ll know how to trap people who are closing down such logic.
Along with the way there are neo fascists groups such as new atheism doing it best to make sure we ALL THINK TRADITIONALY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYMID5qCdE
In terms of defence of individual liberty and property rights, it’s hard to argue, if one wished to, with JL’s discussion (though I wish he would temper his language). Much of James’ work is so commendable; fancy wading through all the horrid material he looks at! no thanks! And so articulately stated. When it comes to discussion of ‘Classical Liberalism,’ however, I think he falls short.
The big problem to me is that there is an implicit background to enlightenment values and the classical liberalism mentioned here that is not recognised. Here is James elsewhere defining CL:
“We are not God. We cannot become God, make God, or speak with the authority of God. This is axiomatic and the beginning of wisdom and prosperity.
“Because we are not God, we cannot know the full nature of God, or even for certainty whether God exists at all. As a result, we cannot know any purpose, including ultimate purpose, each of our lives may have. Because we cannot know the full nature of God, should He exist, nor any purpose our lives may have in His sight, we lack the authority to compel the beliefs of others, lest we lead them into ultimate error. In particular, we therefore lack the authority to alienate anyone, self or other, from the possibility of fulfilling that purpose. In short, lacking the authority of God, we lack justification for the compulsion of our fellow man.
“In that we all lack the authority of God and thus any justification for the compulsion of our fellow man, all men are created politically equal. Nothing in the world, which is also not God, justifies an intrinsically limited human being to hold political or social authority over another without the consent of both parties to that relationship. Any authority we can hold over any other person must therefore be earned, provisional, temporary, and voluntarily given and accepted.”
Thus, lying behind the CL philosophy is the idea of God – who is then denied. In Biblical terms, this is ‘a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.’ This, so far as I know from a pretty unlearned stance, is exactly the position of the enlightenment. James refers to ‘rationalism and skepticism’ as the basis for sound polity – that’s Descartes – rationalism, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes thought he was defending Christian faith, but in fact was undercutting it, appealing to human intellect as our best source. “A form of godliness…” Because this view was at least close to a biblical view apart from its “denying the power,” the two could survive alongside each other, with rationalism, enlightenment values, informing much of the polity. It could do this reasonably successfully just so long as there was a sufficient repository in society of those who do not ‘deny the power’ – that is, as long as there was a sufficiently Christian consensus – that at least is my contention. In the end though, if there is no power to appeal to, human nature will trend downwards into every form of corruption and indecency, and the polity of classical liberalism cannot work. I note that James says that there is no good theory of the individual – well, no, not outside of the Bible, which is very clear. I also note that he appeals to the “sanctity of the conscience”; by what authority? how is it sanctified if there is no working power to sanctify? To me at least, in today’s context, appeal to enlightenment, classical liberal, values just seems rather quaint; it is certainly good to uphold values of liberty, property and privacy, but there has to be some authority to do so.
Finally, since James mentions JS Mill, here is a favourite schoolboy howler: “JS Mill says that the higher pleasures are intellectual, but the lower pleasures are sensational.”
Thank you, James, but please leave out the f word!
James is right even though the way to get back to a bone fide classical liberalism feels unlikely.
What is below :
“Liberalism has failed because liberalism has succeeded. As it becomes fully itself, it generates endemic pathologies more rapidly and pervasively than it is able to produce Band-Aids and veils to cover them… what we face today is not a set of discrete problems solvable by liberal tools but a systemic challenge arising from a pervasive invisible ideology.”
Is true in a conflicting parallel. The reasons such conflicting matter can exist on planes of truth that seem impossible is that the globalist political phenomenological design made sure it could.
What we are meant to do ( and are largely ) is be proletariat wankers who’ve no hope of decoding this elaborate neuroscientic like design.
Thus by the time the now millions of typical contradictions exists happily in a system THEY now how to decipher ?
We are all wasting our fucking time listening to people who insist these problems manifest in ways THEY can understand them. And ? – that this does not include ways of expressing them that cause 90% of friends to reel in horror.
I can reasonably say this as my controlled experiments at large have given this data.
We haven’t got to the beginning of this problem yet have we Roger.
Btw i meant to remark.
I will be changing things as i’m comfortable with certain outlooks as of this very weekend.
Apologies to Larry Cox whom i have been rude to in past in uncalled for manner – sorry Larry.
Samuel ( whoever that really is ) who pointed out ugly construction while seeking to debunk para consistent logic.
And James
Thank you all for your patience.
Don’t forget the WWW might as well be a 1 human body that is afflicted with every mental illness and contradiction in the universe/ It might was well be every cell in our bodies with respect to its participants.
You only get anything from it unless t=you talk to in in the absurd. Only then will something rise from the best & reveal itself.
Yes i am a profound dyslexic.
“Yes i am a profound dyslexic.”
I worked for years with adults who had serious “learning disabilities” and “autism”-type written communication challenges. Like most of them, you also have intelligent, earnest and insightful things to say but language itself is getting in the way of your saying them.
Non-dyslexics navigate the language forest using learned and mastered grammar and syntax as machetes that clear a path to Meaning. Dyslexics become lost in a language jungle with few tools to help them hack their way to basic Comprehensibility. If you want people to really hear what you are trying to say, you need to find a way to fortify those tools.
“Yes i am a profound dyslexic.”
I worked for years with adults who had serious “learning disabilities” and “autism”-type written communication challenges. Like most of them, you also have intelligent, earnest and insightful things to say but language itself is getting in the way of your saying them.
Non-dyslexics navigate the language forest using learned and mastered grammar and syntax as machetes that clear a path to Meaning. Dyslexics become lost in a language jungle with few tools to help them hack their way to basic Comprehensibility. If you want people to really hear what you are trying to say, you need to find a way to fortify those tools.
MM lol. Sounds sincere enough superficially in the gold ole struggle session manner that manifested here. English not being my first language was the answer if any but wasn’t that or autism.
My own sincerity is not up to much having been researching in a specific manner. It is complete far as i’m concerned for what it is worth & i am sorry since sometimes things can beat cost and there great people posting here.
My not being respected whilst not axiomatic in itself, has nevertheless been a crucial part of this research & i’m sorry i manipulated the situation.
The algorithms out there seek total control we know that. Less know is they are done in a manner that resembles place cell research. If so the internet is effectively a rat trap maze in the hands of totalitarianism. They can operate what constitutes digital food or at least reward endorphin based as if people are rats by learning how to probe pure peripheral fear via fight or flight.
If i’m correct the phenomena i’m researching will have it that some of you will choose cognitive dissonance & others won’t. There is a strong link between fight or flight / CD/ sociologically based delusion. Some of you will be determined to stick with your biases not that it matters as we are what we are.
I work in cognitive neuroscience and anything of use will be put to good use.
Good luck and thank you again.
Hello Sociologist Cameron! (I wish people would use their real names online so I could tell who they are.)
I am afraid that I miss some of the back and forth that goes on here, as I don’t get notifications when my comments are replied to.
If you are a trained sociologist, you have a lot more theoretical background than I do. I write here from the seat of my pants. But of course I have some level of training and literacy or I couldn’t even understand what others here are writing about (and sometimes I can’t).
My teacher likened all the information in the universe to an ocean. How do you find the few drops in it that are actually important? One must have a good ability to evaluate relative importances. And one must have a solid idea of what sort of information one is looking for; what problem one is trying to solve.
I fill out my name, email and website every time I comment here. But I don’t see that anyone can actually see any of that data. Visit me on lecox.wordpress.com. I also started a Substack (elaurens.substack.com), but have only posted one article.
Any of the problem philosophical matter is far better off when persons like Lindsay take lines that are differential in the way they focus the field being used in hypothesis thus trying to pinpoint demonstrable reality is meaningless – why ?
Two main reasons for this sort of axiom :
One – the rate of potential that machine learning knows so much now that it can send out the press releases is high.
Two – ( if one were to be correct at al ) it shall probably mean that the matter that does need to be delineated & which we may believe we are pinpointing is hidden inside 90% of digitally produced irrelevance and disorder.
The likely matter of this disorder comes from RELIGION / SCIENCE / PHILOSOPHY big three simple as its persons with this knowledge who are likely to notice the needles in the haystacks = what looks incongruent in the logic.
For example :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-business/wp/2017/10/09/think-humans-are-superior-to-ai-dont-be-a-carbon-chauvinist/
We might look at that and decide it hangs together beautifully or whatever. To me ? – this has high potential of propaganda like intent of a marxism of A.I/ leading to a neo religion / leading to instructions / leading to control.
Perhaps the interesting thing is that we’d also have the opportunity to note the chilling coincidence concerning a so called carbon chauvinism and simply any malicious racial algorithm. The interchangeability here could be staggering for it seems theres nothing new in the article. Its the anti narcissistic algorithm isn’t it ? / its whiteness / white fragility algorithm isn’t it ? / its unconscious bias against blacks algorithm isn’t it ? This time the same algorithm poses as carbon chauvinism and might be out to seek the next neo religious reaction. Can any of this post truth activity be explained by stating exactly what is wrong ? In theory yes but in practice theres never going to be a platform where the empirical evidence is possible to show & tell. Differential equations were present at the foundation of computer languages they are the opposite of new. We should remember that in those days the idea was to avoid open sourcing & thus it was normal to write unique machine language – until it wasn’t. Whence binary language was really the resort to move into the open source we’ve been accustomed to a long time now. In many ways the possibility that scrambled field sociological information ( lets say SFSI even if only for sake on a measly post ) could be real. If so it perhaps heralds with it a return to a occulted language that slivers concurrently in a type of ‘confluencentuality’ way with the red herring shoals. Tentatively a type of neuro linguistic shark and shoal effect & its still pure Turing.
The only way to debate the matter is phenomenologically & algorithmically this not forgetting that ‘An Algorithm’ is any time anything saves time and labour. Some just save enormous amounts & today are global simple as the WWW is. An Algorithm if it needs to be is a note slipped under a lavatory door if it can inform the missing toilet roll is behind the cistern. Too obvious ? – no it isn’t given far more people in all probability believe
A. I. and algorithms confined to digital systems – nope all information is algorithmic so long as it changes the way we do X.
Changes ? – YES – some algorithms are designed to downgrade the quality of our systems. Therefore in this axiom there are merely two fields of interest.
Algorithms that are designed to create quality of life
Algorithms that are designed to decay quality of life
Thats all there is James & tbh you have in recent vlogs / casts whatever alluded to this well.
It could be true to say that matters even though they seem to be geo political matters in are mathematical problems given they are post truth in nature not ‘Truth’. Thus only mathematical calculation via deferential is possible. Almost like stating this axiom expects to ask itself what is the left after all the finite sets have been eliminated. Cae at hand should be say we feel 90% of information is relativistically ‘false’. This does not have to mean 90% its ‘true’ just that 9 out of 10 artefacts in the field need to be removed.
Well yes – followed by commentaries.
As for these many religious arguments and your mindless fucking gnosticx statements they are all a waste of time.
Bro, you should hire a writing tutor.
Samuel Comrade – what are you doing out of bed ?
You are probably really smart, but no one can understand what you just wrote.
Try asking a friend to read your comment out loud. Ask them if you are writing with clarity.
“Any of the problem philosophical matter is far better off when persons like Lindsay take lines that are differential in the way they focus the field being used in hypothesis thus trying to pinpoint demonstrable reality is meaningless – why ?”
What do you want me to do concerning the limitations in intellect concerning you and your friends ?
”Any of the problem philosophical matter ”
There is a podcast outlining much of the specific variety of this above. Many of the previous discussed videos / casts outlined a lot more did they not ?
”is far better off when persons like Lindsay”
James might not be perfect but is suitable
”take lines that are differential in the way they focus the field being used in hypothesis”
Non perfect but suitable persons having stated certain matters ( recently ) that lead naturally to outlloks concerning axiomatic concepts that could implement differential equations / finite sets / computational / modelling language.
”thus trying to pinpoint demonstrable reality is meaningless”
In terms of those models clearly being excluded since western governments now perform almost fully in secrecy. Means ‘reality’ is not available for analysis when totalitarian states imposed post truth era systems. They’ve enacted algorithms and stonewalled them with measurement problems.
Hence the theme of the post was concentrated on the use of terms familiar to those used to such concepts as differential algebra & para consistent logic when creating statistical computational models concerning the language being used.
James Lindsay a Mathematician apparently.
Now just what is you problem really ?
“Sociologist Cameron Cameronsays:
DECEMBER 29, 2023 AT 6:41 PM
What do you want me to do concerning the limitations in intellect concerning you and your friends ?”
Cameron,
Here are a few things you could do:
(1) Read some of your comments out loud to someone in real life.
(2) Go to a local community college writing tutor.
(3) Read a book on writing e.g. On Writing Well by Zinsser
(4) Watch the Teaching Company course on editing https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/effective-editing-how-to-take-your-writing-to-the-next-level
You are ignoring the reader when you write. You are just writing for yourself.
If you saw someone’s facial reaction when made them read your monstrosities, you would learn better how you come across.
I see, now, that this is not your first post in this style on New Discourses. You really need a new schtick, and I wish you the best in re-inventing yourself.
I won’t be changing anything James
It may be the individual who decides to submit to Islam, but once the individual has made that determination, they lack the right to change their mind, on pain of death in many majority Islam countries. James talks like a person deciding to come to Christ is comparable. It’s not.
”James talks like a person deciding to come to Christ is comparable. It’s not.”
Hes slowly learning that a fearsome algorithm designed by whoever taught richard dawkins it owns him.
Hes learning that ‘smart’ is when a person can tell that say ‘Unit Dawkins’ is actually just a dogsboddy that another deadly source taught to spread marxism & that Unit Dawkins doesn’t even know this himself yet. I mean far be it this is from the very expensive and long ‘getfans’ style budget thats advertised a dawkins genius BS. I have never see such average intelligence get away with this before as the unit dawkins one but there we are.
James might scrub up one day if we can de -louse – de -flea and get rid of the rabies that happened at the new atheism dogs home. In fact hes been sounding better of late.
There isn’t going to be a signposting of the way to battle by his pitch forks Andrew unless symbolically a trident might be a sign of post truth. The lord of the underworld likes to do it by first teaching people how not to detect violation in logic in education – then violating logic to that same pattern! These persons find everything in order and are happy to push this disorder unto others.
Not religious myself but any trad atheist knew that like Dawkins may as well be Satan. The man seems to have back room staff hidden the size of a corporation since a machine constantly spreads a propaganda concerning his brilliant and niceness. One looks for his achievements and in hard science terms there is zero as there are pop science books which are far less ‘brilliant’ than the never ending hype. Hiding ( i think ) a not even anti religious person since it seems to me the whole point was a thought crime model.
Everything else simply smoke & mirrors.
It’s not that simple. The Reformation fractured Christendom into over 30,000 protestant sects and individual interpretation of the Bible has created more division not less. The Catholic Church for centuries met heresy after heresy to protect an orthodox and uniform system of belief and relativized Truth. This has led to division in the only bulwark against the evil we are seeing today. Satan must have loved the divorce of 1517.
The rest of the podcast is good but you can make your points without the profanity.
Dear Retired
One thing that made me sad as an atheist before ‘new atheism’ and since is the way they found a way to block peoples understanding and – alternately – gain access to group insanity ( of their neo religious fanatics ) in a fundamentalist way. This was the step to stir a consensus for new atheism to seek bans and prohibitions against ‘religion’ – something that had latterly become a somewhat ‘ nu plastique’ when being stressed balled up by average I.Q. twits like richard dawkins. Well to say ‘against religion’ is a joke isn’t it as the thought crime model new theism developed very deliberately gagged christianity in europe ensuring that no other religion was disrupted by them. Well in fact another abrahamic religion slotted into place in areas that christianity is now dysfunctional.
Funny That – i though a GENIUS like Dawkins could not possibly render such a catastrophic mistake ? Thing is theres no mistake in that respect but thats another kettle of fish.
The important thing is that rat boys like dawkins who play this type of mind game are seen for what they are. Old nick is kind of enjoying it all whilst on vacation after all given machine learning does it all for him now. Manifest is such a beast and when weren’t they ? Believers say they remote viewed & distance pontificated action the entire time therefore omnipotence is unaltered or bettered even by acting via algorithms ? Yes thats a bit cheap as well as fairly meaningful & much is these days if that fairer. Isn’t everyone saddened as soon as all encapsulating global method of spreading totalitarianism became available it was use at once ? NO – hardly anyone has noticed yet & many are trying to ‘join the middle classes’. Where on the whole what is happening is a case of the elite saying to the middle class ‘we want nothing to do with the working class anymore’ Which seems impossible given ‘the elite’ have the power thus run the system thus ‘rule’ right ? Well the thing is that post truth works through – non binary – de-coupled – para consistent – counter intuitive – heuristic – algorithmic – Abstractions. They run a constant stream of approximations then the A.i. pumps out some statement that looks like a sensible human one. These go into the MSN – the MSN react & your old nick would be highly amused at people taking artificial argument so seriously all the time. The A.I. i would think is told to take this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
And make more stuff that encourages people to coercively control each other. One of the most popular of these self destructive hysterias is is anti narcissism. Have a look at ur old nick fest there perhaps because you’ll see a whole new victimhood thats protecting itself ( from narcissists its supposed to be ) but by becoming one. At least the mentoring forces have this anti narcissism methodology that can only constitute that given that the attitudes and methods recommended are so malicious.Thats another hiding in plain sight situation & these are coming along in alarming numbers. Anti narc – anti white & all the other malicious anti algorithms are all inversions of ways of thinking that were just used for domestic violence theories.
Your Old Nick knows how to re-use and re- purpose illegal activity yes. Hes very busy counter acting & re-legalising forces overwise deemed illegal activity. Anti narcissism, white fragility, thought crime modelling. People throw their knickers and underpants and kiss the feet those who make the models that abolish their free speech these days. It is hardly surprising that a narcissists victim thinks the best way to handle that victimhood is by becoming one – BUT – doing so via a cognitive loop that the influencer provides where THEY DO NOT KNOW they are doing this – how ?
Because the influencer doesn’t either.