Every Move You Make—The Police #beatboxcover #acapellacover #beatboxing #acapella #singingcover #music

Maybe I’ll finally get my wish for something akin to the “Nuremberg Trials” for the deep state. My big obsession over Epstein isn’t about the man himself (he is gone), but about exposing the deep rot within the bureaucracy and hears of government so that we can hang those who are RESPONSIBLE for everything else. Epstein was the obvious case that could be used as a starting point: like getting a mafia middle manager to rat out his boss and associates. Considering we STILL haven’t and likely won’t get Epstein documents now… maybe they could start with the COVID lockdown lies. The ones covering up Covid happening in the first place, then the ones who said it was nothing, the ones that covered up that WE paid to make it, then 180°ed and suddenly locked the planet down. View quoted note →

Translation: “no matter what you vote for, we will undermine you so that your vote doesn’t matter anyway”. Burn it down. View quoted note →

I’ll repeat for the billionth time: age verification for adult content is a Trojan horse for more surveillance state authority. It is this generations patriot act, except they are trying to slow-dance it in rather than using the shock of tragedy to do it all at once. View quoted note →

Highly recommend the read, btw. “Kant v Sullivan” was perhaps my greatest inspiration as a father for quite some time. View quoted note →

#fitnesstr #fitness #workouts #familytime #fatherhood #cute #funny #kids

Random Jazzy Beat #randombeat #acapella #jazzmusic #jazz #beatboxing #freestyle #upbeatmusic #music

Random Beat #randombeat #beatboxing #singletake #noeffects #nofilter #workingman #lipbuzzbass #music

A Challenge Accepted #beatboxing #singletake #noeffects #acapella #nostr #challengesong #music #grownostr

Know thine enemy

Seeing if this is more visible than the original or not ###Prologue### I was originally going to explore all three below options and their use, expressions, and underlying implications in one article. But, as you will see below, for brevity reasons alone, I decided to split this series into 3 distinct articles. This one will be on the preconditions of discourse, inspired by the memory and loss of Charlie Kirk. I did not agree with the man on every point, but he was nonetheless a hero, and his loss has exposed a great evil in our society that I have been trying to expose for a long time but people were too blindly optimistic to see. The “nothing ever happens” crowd, if you will. It is this evil that I intend to highlight and critique. ###The 3 Forms of Conflict Resolution### There are only three ways to deal with other people: 1) avoidance 2) violence 3) discourse All other discussions are subdivisions within those categories. When you say “I don’t want to kill them, I want to arrest them”, you are STILL choosing violence, just a more measured form. When you say “I’ll be cordial, but I’ll keep my distance” you are choosing avoidance within a context where complete avoidance is impossible. When you say “I don’t think this is the right message”, you are still choosing discourse, but disagreeing on the means. However, discourse is NOT the default state of human interactions. Anyone who spends time around young children, knows history, or knows the modern state of politics in less developed nations knows this intutitively. Children push, shove, bite, and slap each other when they want the same toy but haven’t the social or linguistic tools to come to an arrangement. When scolded by their parents, a kid may run away or purposely self-seclude somewhere. Kids automatically oscillate between violence and avoidance as a default, not because they are cruel or evil or anything else, but because they are children. Children have not learned the social, linguistic, self regulatory, and philosophical concepts to engage in discourse. Discourse is NOT natural. It is learned, and it only works if specific underlying principles are adhered to. ###UNDERPINNINGS OF DISCOURSE### ##Objective Referential Reality## The most important underpinning of discourse is a mutual agreement on the part of all parties of the existence of an objective referential reality. This objective referential reality or truth is the subject of the debate. “Does this social institution have consequence X?” “Is this dress black or blue?”. A debate can be had over whether the social institution is real or whether the photo of the dress was fake. But, in the case of both side-bar debates, the implication is still that A truth exists OBJECTIVELY and that the validity of that truth can be validated by observation, using deduction to rule out impossible or implausible explanations, and that both parties agree in the principle of the correspondence theory of truth. All of those base mutual assumptions are Aristotelian in origin and, for that reason—as Aristotle is the sole intellectual in western cannon that does not have a clear eastern counterpart—a uniquely western trait. But the Aristotelian principles that underpin these shared assumptions are 1) finite universe 2) validity of the senses 3) “essences”, meaning that the abstract notions of a thing are contain WITHIN the things themselves, rather than being projections or reflections as per Platonist dualism 4) the corollary to all the above: there is an objective, measurable reality that exists outside our perception but can be verified by perception, about which we can debate, using logic and observation as evidence 5) correspondence theory of truth: “that which is true is that which corresponds with reality”. Every fair and honest debate you have ever had in your life has been based on these premises. The disagreements are on details… For example WHICH observational evidence is more valid/pertinent? How does one measure and define the criteria for a judgement? Etc. But now consider this phrase: “my truth”. Can you actual debate someone else’s personal truth? Wouldn’t it be impossible mind reading at best or gaslighting at worst to tell someone what their own beliefs are? Well, not necessarily, but those who use this phrase will certainly act like it anyway. But you certainly can’t engage with honest discourse with some who ascribes to this. ##subjective vs objective truth## Suppose I tell you the sky is blue. You argue that the sky is actually gray today because it is cloudy. This is honest disagreement, and it mostly based on perspective: one person is stating the normal or average color of the sky, and the other is stating the current conditions. The discourse between these people can be easily resolved by merely hashing out which perspective is most important/relevant at the moment. But what if someone responded with “well, blue is a construct anyway. What you see as blue, someone else sees as brown. So, you could say that the sky is brown”?. The implicit metaphysical premise under that question is as follows: 1) Infinite Universe: each entity can actually have an infinite number of attributes and values. By the implied logic of the question, why not stop at two colors? It could be all or none or all of the above. 2) Invalidity of the Senses: your senses lie to you. Further, our senses don’t even operate by shared rules. Therefore, there is no correlation between what we are seeing and anything about the supposed object in question. 3) Dualism: since there is no intrinsic, measurable, and verifiable truth of the entity in question, this implies that any consensus or understanding exists, not in the thing itself, but in our mental world. These mental concepts, thereby, sit separate and apart from the world outside of our own minds. This is the bear essence of metaphysical dualism. For Plato, it was the physical world vs the world of the forms. For Kant, it was the numena vs phenomena. For the Bhuddah, it was the living world vs the Brahman. The terms may change, but the concept is the same. 4) Immeasurable and Undefinable: self explanatory from the above. 5) Non-Referential Concepts: if what I see as blue is actually brown, then my concept doesn’t refer to the thing itself, but only my own understanding. It implies that the understandings of my mind do not refer to reality and, by extension, obliterate even the understanding that a reality outside of mine or another person’s thoughts even exists. To what does my concept of blue belong to then under this implicit notion? Itself… blue is my understanding of blue, not a real thing. Such is the contradictory non-logic of the Marxist belief in “social constructs”… the implication being that societies invent concepts referring to nothing and without reason, which is merely a dishonest projection of how the Marxists “analyze” said societies. The latter point is the origin of “I feel” in its modern use such as “I feel threatened by your speech”. No real threat needs to be experienced. The concept is a projection: the speaker FEELS threatened because facing the truths being spoken is in conflict with the irrational identity the person has constructed for himself and the whole metaphysical dualist house of cards it is predicated on. The threat he “feels” is not physical violence, but existential dread. But existential dread hurts and is understood to be the same as pain… so he equate anything that invokes it the same physical violence. ##Regulation## Beyond the logical requirements above, discourse requires all parties to 1) Agree to a common subject of discourse 2) Agree to a suspension of unfavorable actions until the discourse has been concluded 3) Agree to a suspension of favorable action until after the discourse has been concluded (delayed gratification) 4) agree to reject the other two options (violence or avoidance) for the duration of the discourse I think it is self explanatory why this is seldom expected in children. For the same reasons, it is less likely from those from savage cultures or from those who were failed by their parents and state-run education systems as children. ###Bigger Man Syndrome### Truth = Truth A = A A thing is what it is, and what it is is the confluence of all of its attributes. It’s attributes are all measurable quantities. Each attribute is measured by their own human-derived standard, but the underlying fact of their value remains the same. A human can choose to measure the length of a thing by feet, meters, or ping-pong balls, but those measurements can be converted and translated between each other because the underlying attribute they refer to is the same and does not change regardless of which measure a person chooses to use. Each attribute must be SOME value, but can be ANY value within the accepted range. If the attribute in question falls outside the range for a particular conceptual category, then that entity does not belong in that category (eg: the angles of a triangle can be ANY angle, so long as they have SOME value and that the total of all 3 angles 180°. If a supposed triangle does NOT have a total angular measure measurement of 180°, or if it has more or less than 3 angles, then it is NOT a triangle). For a thorough walk through of the full and complete picture of all of the above, I recommend anyone interested to read “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” by Ayn Rand and Aristotle’s Logic. My point in outlining the bare bones of the epistemological system here is to show just how exact and rigorous legitimate and honest discourse can and should be. But just as one cannot play chess if the opponent is playing the rules of checkers… just as one cannot be considered in a boxing match against an opponent who is responding within the ruleset of Brazilian Jiujitsu… so too, a person cannot be considered engaged in discourse with someone who denies objective reality as a concept, discounts language as an arbitrary and subjective con game with no connection to reality, or who disbelieves in discourse as a tool. Just like the chess player and the boxer, a person trying to debate a spiritual dualist in this manner will wind up losing because he is holding himself to a rigorous standard that his opponent does not. Such a person will only accomplish the intellectual equivalent of trying to go for a punch only to be stuck on the ground, forbidding himself the necessary response of defending his neck or his arms. “I signed up for a boxing match” he’ll exclaim, as he extends his arm for another punch, since he swears by his commitment to ONLY punch… and he’ll find that opponent will the take and break that arm, because the opponent did not restrict HIMSELF to the same restrictive ruleset as he did. This is the game that the more intellectually honest and reasonable, whatever their other disagreements, have been playing for my whole life. “We can’t arrest them for that. What if they used that against us?” Then the other side arrests them anyway. “We can’t fight them in the street. We are the party of law and order.” Then they get beaten and sometimes literally killed by massive mobs of street thugs all dressed in the same uniform in order to camouflage within the mob circle like a herd of zebras all blending in amongst the others of their group. Reasonable parties need to remember that A=A. Discourse is a measurable and definable process that has distinct requirements to be classified as such. When your opponent tackles you and begins to apply joint locks, you are no longer in a boxing match. A wise man doesn’t commit himself to the ruleset his opponent violated, and thereby allow his assailant—no longer opponent, as violation of sporting rules means lack of consent to the violence and, therefore, ASSAULT—to break his arm. A wise man acknowledges that he is no longer in a boxing match, and he results to whatever techniques he has available to protect himself. Whether it be otherwise illegal techniques or weapons, acknowledgement of your ASSAULT under these conditions does not make you a “lesser man” for “stooping to his level”… it means you are wise enough to call a spade a spade and to not stubbornly risk life or limb on wishful thinking about what SHOULD have been in the face of what IS. Likewise, in discourse, when when your interlocutor (upon Socratic questioning or outright of his own accord) admits that he doesn’t care about the truth, that he “feels” like you are “a Nazi” and that Nazis “need to be punched”, you are NOT engaging in discourse. The corollary of Ben Shapiro’s saying “facts don’t care about your feelings” is Lauren Southern’s rebut “their feelings don’t care about your facts”. On a metaphysical level, they see your facts as merely a bias due to some arbitrary category (white, Nazi, colonizer, etc) they have put you in. On an epistemological level, since they believe all beliefs and truths pertain to the content of their own minds rather than something outside themselves, their feelings are MORE VALID than your facts, because they are the ones feeling them, whereas they do not know or care to read/listen to your facts. ###Charlie Kirk and the Awakening of the Rational### Whatever you believe about Charlie Kirk’s opinions, one thing is for certain: he believed in the power of discourse. It stands to reason that he would, as he was a human testament to its power. Make no mistake, for all of his errors and mistakes, the man was a paragon of human respect and literally put his life at risk to discuss with people topics that he believed were key to saving them on a spiritual and psychological level. Charlie was killed BECAUSE he was successful in that endeavor, and was successfully refuting the logical premises of the trans agenda. His efforts were successful enough that there are multiple success stories of him “detransitioning” people with his words, including some people I know personally.  But the fact that he was killed for his activism, combined with the vocal apologies and rationalizations that came after it show the limits of what discourse is and is capable of. For those who were honestly lead astray or pushed by peer pressure into trans ideology and other forms of cultural Marxism, Charlie Kirk represented a beacon of light and hope and an example of a superior alternative. For those who were truly evil, who would have never and will never allow themselves to see contrary thoughts… those who believe might makes right because only our subjective thoughts make reality… those who killed him to eliminate his thoughts in order to remake the reality they want, and to allow themselves to indulge in their non-reality by removing those who threaten exposing it for the psychological projection it is… they can never and WILL never be saved. They can never be negotiated with. Only the firmness of force or a large distance of avoidance can keep us or our loved ones safe from them. ###Afterward### (excerpt is the first verse of my song “into the distance”). Come sail away with me into the distance I’m not trying to run away from earth I’m off trying to find it Because I see the shifting faces Of everyone around me and I Know that there’s a world out there They are trying not to find They say one thing and then it’s exact opposite But they mean it when they scream Stay quiet and sit still Well I’ve seen the sun set Time and again above this sky So I’m going to catch up with it To see where it will rise ——Rest in Peace Charlie. My wife was one of your greatest fans and two of my closest friends were saved from the brink by your words. I can never repay you enough for what your words and content did for at least 3 of the people I love most.—— View article →

“But the far right”… 🤦‍♂️ View quoted note →

So Connecticut and Virginia are the ONLY states that require ID and vote left… 🤔

Random Beat #randombeat #acapella #jazzmusic #jazz #beatboxing #freestyle #upbeatmusic #music @Vyram Kraven @Neigsendoig Cocules @micahcmiracle

Seriously feels like this sometimes. “Dude, you’re so talented. How do you not have a following?” Idk. It’s not a Nostr thing either. I have about as many followers on YouTube and Rumble, TBH. And I’m posting almost the exact same content there (I repost basically everything, but I have some Nostr exclusives like me “Story Game” podcast with my kids). View quoted note →

Yep. It’s called the “sunken cost fallacy”. View quoted note →