Basing police presence in neighborhoods on actual violence/theft crime rates would be great. It would help everyone else in those neighborhoods, because local crime is a huge contributing factor to poverty via lowering community investment.
In general I don't pay attention to celebrity news/gossip, but naturally some cultural shrapnel lands in my awareness. Now, I thought, with respect to Diddy, that they found some industrial scale minor grooming operation he was conducting through his label.
That, instead, the only thing that there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt is that he facilitated transportation for prostitution, and the charge does not mention minors, is quite a massive leap.
Prostitution should be legal, as George Carlin said: "Fucking is legal, paying for shit is legal, why isn't paying for fucking legal?"
And a felony charge and 20 years for engaging in that is rather nuts.
And so this contrast as far as what I thought based on general cultural osmosis compared to what was proven in the court of law presents a reasonable example of one of your main theses: that Diddy is a Girardian scapegoat brought on by the hegemony, across both left and right, of "church lady" ideology
and that you indicate this is a problem for the vitality and vigor of civilization because the same energy that compels certain men towards the hedonistic and reproductive heights of Picasso and Elon Musk is the same energy that compels them towards groundbreaking cultural and technological advances.
Some on-brand loony stuff in the article of course (sending criminals to Haiti) but overall you make a good case here.
Leftism which is founded on resentment, calling out conservatism for being based on spite is at least unique and interesting. Could be two sides of the same coin. Worth discussing.
Prostitution is akin to gambling in my mind. There exists a category of activities that stand out as being uniquely able to hijack peoples' reward circuitry. Whether or not outright bans are appropriate, these things must be approached with an understanding of this special category.
Mr. Deep-Left, with all do respect how can you as an advocate for elite driven progress just dismiss the Ditty case as rightoids have another moralfag melty?
You, as someone impassioned by the idea of an elite vanguard driving us to new heights, should be the most disgusted. Instead of having an elite who earns their merits by their raw drive and abilities, its becoming more and more clear that at best capable people are being kept on strings by blackmail and away from their full potential, or at worse absolute idiots that blackmailers like Ditty and Epstein can boss around both with blackmail, and by being stupid and helpless, needing total outside direction on how to vote on congressional bills. Are elite blackmail rings going to create the environment and produce elites who will take us to the stars, or push our biology to make the mere flesh truly transcendent?
While the politicians and celebrities get most the attention in these cases, Epstein brought down a lot of big name scientist, and got Richard M. Stallman the founder of the GNU project, which is what enables site like this to exist, canceled, losing his office at MIT (he never had a formal position with the university) for sticking up for one of his MIT buddies caught up in the ring.
I know a potential rebuttal could be "We just need Deep Left oriented blackmail rings." But without a sense of morals and decency, you get a parasitic elite. Elites like this are more than happy to coast, as is the case in third world countries or the Antebellum south. They never innovate, while often actively impeding the innovation you so want as a way to maintain power. And these sort of blackmail rings play to our most base desires. Do you really want elites who can be hoodwinked by a crumb of underage pussy or a bit of zesty action with the homies?
I'm not suggesting the hypothetical Deep Left vanguard couldn't get their freak on once in awhile, but there is no deny that there is a reason sexuality is usually treated as a vice to be channeled. You want these people putting their brains and power to creating the future, not finding new ways to stick their cocks into holes, when we've already got more than enough was to satisfy that demand. And even if you blackmail the most competent people, you may just be limiting the potential they could bring, and giving them unnecessary stress someday that video of them doing weird stuff naked with a live hornet's nest will come out.
And this raises an important question to your work. Is Deep Leftism little more than a pretentious intellectual form of "BIG THING COOL!", much in the same way MAGA chud Texans pride themselves on having big stuff, or Gulf Arabs building a skyscraper who's sole purpose is to be the world's tallest building? This one of the issues I have with progressivism, be it the nominal shitlib kind or your elitist one: what are we trying to progress to, and why it is better than what we have now? While I like cool stuff and big buildings as much as anyone, I feel it's hollow to base your whole civilization on, though I guess it's preferable to John Lenon's "Imagine" *shudders*
What happened to Stallman was terrible. This Epstein obsession has a very antisemitic feel to it sadly and I hate to say it a very witch hunt element to it
The document contains several highly controversial viewpoints that many would find objectionable:
Regarding Crime and Policing:
Claims that "poor citizens" cause most crime and advocates for militarized policing and deportation to Haiti
Suggests targeting entire communities with "maximum policing pressure" based on socioeconomic status
Makes sweeping generalizations about crime patterns without evidence
Regarding Sexual Exploitation:
Dismisses serious sex trafficking charges as merely "paying for transportation"
Minimizes the harm of prostitution and sex work
Argues that criminalizing the purchase of sex is unfair to buyers
Compares consensual adult sex work to clearly exploitative situations involving minors
Historical Misrepresentations:
Presents a selective and arguably misleading history of prostitution laws
Romanticizes historical periods when sex work was less regulated, ignoring exploitation
Uses historical examples to justify contemporary positions without proper context
Inflammatory Language:
Uses derogatory terms and makes sweeping generalizations about various groups
Employs loaded language around race, religion, and sexuality
Makes unfounded claims about motivations behind legal prosecutions
Moral and Legal Positions:
Equates consensual adult activities with exploitation
Dismisses legitimate concerns about coercion and trafficking
Presents a false equivalency between legal adult entertainment and illegal activities
Political Generalizations:
Makes broad, unsupported claims about political motivations
Uses inflammatory rhetoric about various political and social groups
These viewpoints are controversial because they often contradict established legal principles, ignore documented harms, and make unsupported generalizations about complex social and legal issues.
Under ancient Judaism prostitution was viewed similarly - tolerated but not highly regarded. Fathers were instructed not to sell their daughters into prostitution but there was no specific penalty attached and we know that prostitutes existed.
A similar position applied in much of Christendom. St Augustine regarded prostitution as a necessary evil in society, as morally preferable to masturbation (weird take, but ok). As you say, almost no one seriously opposed its existence though it was always held in contempt.
The position of the Reformers on this was strange, to say the least, and compares to the zeal of progressives in trying to over-legislate everything. I'm a Protestant myself but I can admit here that they were wrong and should have upheld the prior consensus of prostitution as morally wrong but as socio-politically tolerable.
Diddy is exactly like OJ Simpson. Both were successful black men who transgressed the white hierarchy and of course were made public spectacles of. Hey at least OJ justly was acquitted. Diddy not so much
Basing police presence in neighborhoods on actual violence/theft crime rates would be great. It would help everyone else in those neighborhoods, because local crime is a huge contributing factor to poverty via lowering community investment.
In general I don't pay attention to celebrity news/gossip, but naturally some cultural shrapnel lands in my awareness. Now, I thought, with respect to Diddy, that they found some industrial scale minor grooming operation he was conducting through his label.
That, instead, the only thing that there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt is that he facilitated transportation for prostitution, and the charge does not mention minors, is quite a massive leap.
Prostitution should be legal, as George Carlin said: "Fucking is legal, paying for shit is legal, why isn't paying for fucking legal?"
And a felony charge and 20 years for engaging in that is rather nuts.
And so this contrast as far as what I thought based on general cultural osmosis compared to what was proven in the court of law presents a reasonable example of one of your main theses: that Diddy is a Girardian scapegoat brought on by the hegemony, across both left and right, of "church lady" ideology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHyW0N5f7zQ
and that you indicate this is a problem for the vitality and vigor of civilization because the same energy that compels certain men towards the hedonistic and reproductive heights of Picasso and Elon Musk is the same energy that compels them towards groundbreaking cultural and technological advances.
Some on-brand loony stuff in the article of course (sending criminals to Haiti) but overall you make a good case here.
Leftism which is founded on resentment, calling out conservatism for being based on spite is at least unique and interesting. Could be two sides of the same coin. Worth discussing.
Prostitution is akin to gambling in my mind. There exists a category of activities that stand out as being uniquely able to hijack peoples' reward circuitry. Whether or not outright bans are appropriate, these things must be approached with an understanding of this special category.
Good analogy! And both are legal in Nevada. I think we need to legalize both but provide help to people that get addicted or exploited.
Mr. Deep-Left, with all do respect how can you as an advocate for elite driven progress just dismiss the Ditty case as rightoids have another moralfag melty?
You, as someone impassioned by the idea of an elite vanguard driving us to new heights, should be the most disgusted. Instead of having an elite who earns their merits by their raw drive and abilities, its becoming more and more clear that at best capable people are being kept on strings by blackmail and away from their full potential, or at worse absolute idiots that blackmailers like Ditty and Epstein can boss around both with blackmail, and by being stupid and helpless, needing total outside direction on how to vote on congressional bills. Are elite blackmail rings going to create the environment and produce elites who will take us to the stars, or push our biology to make the mere flesh truly transcendent?
While the politicians and celebrities get most the attention in these cases, Epstein brought down a lot of big name scientist, and got Richard M. Stallman the founder of the GNU project, which is what enables site like this to exist, canceled, losing his office at MIT (he never had a formal position with the university) for sticking up for one of his MIT buddies caught up in the ring.
I know a potential rebuttal could be "We just need Deep Left oriented blackmail rings." But without a sense of morals and decency, you get a parasitic elite. Elites like this are more than happy to coast, as is the case in third world countries or the Antebellum south. They never innovate, while often actively impeding the innovation you so want as a way to maintain power. And these sort of blackmail rings play to our most base desires. Do you really want elites who can be hoodwinked by a crumb of underage pussy or a bit of zesty action with the homies?
I'm not suggesting the hypothetical Deep Left vanguard couldn't get their freak on once in awhile, but there is no deny that there is a reason sexuality is usually treated as a vice to be channeled. You want these people putting their brains and power to creating the future, not finding new ways to stick their cocks into holes, when we've already got more than enough was to satisfy that demand. And even if you blackmail the most competent people, you may just be limiting the potential they could bring, and giving them unnecessary stress someday that video of them doing weird stuff naked with a live hornet's nest will come out.
And this raises an important question to your work. Is Deep Leftism little more than a pretentious intellectual form of "BIG THING COOL!", much in the same way MAGA chud Texans pride themselves on having big stuff, or Gulf Arabs building a skyscraper who's sole purpose is to be the world's tallest building? This one of the issues I have with progressivism, be it the nominal shitlib kind or your elitist one: what are we trying to progress to, and why it is better than what we have now? While I like cool stuff and big buildings as much as anyone, I feel it's hollow to base your whole civilization on, though I guess it's preferable to John Lenon's "Imagine" *shudders*
What happened to Stallman was terrible. This Epstein obsession has a very antisemitic feel to it sadly and I hate to say it a very witch hunt element to it
This is deeply Deep Left.
No, but mostly because his music sucks.
Didn’t even read it yet, but had to comment for the title!
The document contains several highly controversial viewpoints that many would find objectionable:
Regarding Crime and Policing:
Claims that "poor citizens" cause most crime and advocates for militarized policing and deportation to Haiti
Suggests targeting entire communities with "maximum policing pressure" based on socioeconomic status
Makes sweeping generalizations about crime patterns without evidence
Regarding Sexual Exploitation:
Dismisses serious sex trafficking charges as merely "paying for transportation"
Minimizes the harm of prostitution and sex work
Argues that criminalizing the purchase of sex is unfair to buyers
Compares consensual adult sex work to clearly exploitative situations involving minors
Historical Misrepresentations:
Presents a selective and arguably misleading history of prostitution laws
Romanticizes historical periods when sex work was less regulated, ignoring exploitation
Uses historical examples to justify contemporary positions without proper context
Inflammatory Language:
Uses derogatory terms and makes sweeping generalizations about various groups
Employs loaded language around race, religion, and sexuality
Makes unfounded claims about motivations behind legal prosecutions
Moral and Legal Positions:
Equates consensual adult activities with exploitation
Dismisses legitimate concerns about coercion and trafficking
Presents a false equivalency between legal adult entertainment and illegal activities
Political Generalizations:
Makes broad, unsupported claims about political motivations
Uses inflammatory rhetoric about various political and social groups
These viewpoints are controversial because they often contradict established legal principles, ignore documented harms, and make unsupported generalizations about complex social and legal issues.
Under ancient Judaism prostitution was viewed similarly - tolerated but not highly regarded. Fathers were instructed not to sell their daughters into prostitution but there was no specific penalty attached and we know that prostitutes existed.
A similar position applied in much of Christendom. St Augustine regarded prostitution as a necessary evil in society, as morally preferable to masturbation (weird take, but ok). As you say, almost no one seriously opposed its existence though it was always held in contempt.
The position of the Reformers on this was strange, to say the least, and compares to the zeal of progressives in trying to over-legislate everything. I'm a Protestant myself but I can admit here that they were wrong and should have upheld the prior consensus of prostitution as morally wrong but as socio-politically tolerable.
Keep fighting the good fight DLA!
Diddy is exactly like OJ Simpson. Both were successful black men who transgressed the white hierarchy and of course were made public spectacles of. Hey at least OJ justly was acquitted. Diddy not so much
Martin Luther should have been crucified . Think about it we would all be non whoring Protestants😳
Please don’t