leviathan-supersystem:2357911131719:contemplate-everything:leviathan-supersystem:mugasofer:leviathan
leviathan-supersystem:2357911131719:contemplate-everything:leviathan-supersystem:mugasofer:leviathan-supersystem:lenins-grave-robber:leviathan-supersystem:leviathan-supersystem:reactionaries are absolutely brain dead for saying this shit where everyone can see themsame dude had a thread where he asserted, with absolute sincerity, that the events of JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings are historically factualis the LOTR thing referring to some right wingers thinking the various races represent ancient human species, for example the dwarves being neanderthals and elves being “Aryans”(of course)? because i saw that bullshit exactly on a stormfront thread once.there’s some chatter about racist pseudoscience of that sort in the comments. here’s the main thread:This might be my new favourite bonkers conspiracy theory. … so, this guy thinks the Lord of the Rings is non-fiction, and yet you still trust his take on Yang?reactionaries may be deeply stupid on matters of history, sociology, economics, morality, biology, and whether hobbits are real, but they have at least a basic rudimentary understanding of who is, and who isn’t on their side- or, as they’d put it, /their guy/. so i’m inclined to take note of that kind of thing, especially when it’s backed up by material evidence, like the Thiel connection. similarly, creationists may have idiotic notions of how old the earth is, but if they say they have reason to believe a political candidate will advance their agenda, i take that seriously, and not just ignore it because they think other dumb things. That’s not the claim being made, though.“Andrew Yang will advance the nrx political agenda” is different from “Andrew Yang ran to advance the nrx political agenda”. The idea that someone can recognize the first is understandable, but to reliably know the second this random twitter dude would need comprehensive insider information on the motives of the Yang campaign.Consider the difference between “Creationists are smart enough to know who will advance their agenda” and “Creationists know which candidates secretly believe that the earth is 6000 years old and plan to make this official state doctrine”. One is believable, the other is not.Really, the simplest explanation here is that this dude is very prone to coming up with outlandish conspiracies that validate his worldview, which amongst other things includes the delusion that his fringe ideology is being represented by a semi-mainstream candidate, and that said candidate dropping out is totally according to the plan, you guys! It’s like those dumb right-wingers who insisted that no, the impeachment procedures are all totally false, and just a front for Trump investigating Democrats, because nothing that they don’t like can ever happen.(also, what is the Yang-Thiel connection? all I’m getting are some vague posts where Yang and Thiel kind of have similar views on a handful of things except not really)As far as I can tell, there’s no Yang-Thiel connection. Yang’s been endorsed by a few people who’ve been involved in institutions that received funding from Thiel, and apparently he’s quoted Eric Weinstein, but the only thing I could find from Thiel himself was an interview in which Thiel said Yang was wrong about the future of automation and and redistribution would destroy the economy. gonna take these both as a unit@contemplate-everything you’re acting as if someone would need to be a mind-reader to have any kind of knowledge about someone’s political allegiances, which is absurd. creationists- and other reactionaries- have conferences, events, organized groups, loose social clusters, etc- if a creationist regularly saw a political candidate at creationist conferences, or similar, they would know that said candidate was on their team. so no, it’s actually not at all unreasonable to think that creationists might “know which candidates secretly believe that the earth is 6000 years old and plan to make this official state doctrine”- this is actually entirely plausible. not through some mystical intuition, but through entirely mundane phenomenon of being part of that community and therefore being passingly familiar with the prominent figures who are also part of that community.@2357911131719 “apparently he’s quoted Eric Weinstein” yeah, and also appeared on Eric’s podcast, oh and Eric has gone out of his way to assist Andrew Yang’s campaign several times [link] and here’s the #yanggang calling him “our man Eric” [link] oh and here’s Eric calling Andrew his “buddy”. [link]well jeez, nothing to see here, after all Eric is merely the managing director of Thiel Capital, but hey i guess unless i find a picture of Andrew Yang and Peter Thiel himself buying a friendship bracelet together there’s no connection. none at all. Thanks for the correction; did not notice the podcast appearance, definitely he and Weinstein are more closely associated than I thought. That said, a Thiel connection to me seems to imply either Thiel personally or in some professional sense supporting Yang, or Yang explicitly expressing support for Thiel, which as far as I can tell isn’t the case. -- source link
Tumblr Blog : leviathan-supersystem.tumblr.com