If it's algorithmic, it will probably discount past wrong-think, right? mostly look for current wrong-think

maybe my internet history won't doom me lol

nigga this is not a drill. The guy gave a big presentation on how they were figuring out how to detect early schizophrenia algorithmically and then figure out how to automatically make it "reach out to people at risk"

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

but you gotta understand these are the hellbound SJW sodomites who are giving people tranny drugs and telling people trannyism is normal

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

so basically imagine if psycho-pass was orchestrated by gamergate purplehairs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

I've never seen Psycho-Pass but I'll watch it if it's on netflix before I cancel my fucking netflix

strong recommend

purple-hairs will need to be helicoptered

well what I see happening is disruptive technology emerging that favors leftism

yeah you were talking about this. I was interested.

this is exactly the shit I'm talking about

the people who are coming out with this are the ivy tower reds who think they are "doing what's best for society"

it's interesting because the right are the only ones who create ideology, and leftists can only coopt it; but it does appear in these days like the leftists always beat them to the punch with social technology, and rightists (well, really only /pol/) coopt it

the american right is not particularly ideologically driven. The heavy influence of post-reagan neoconservatism has basically eclipsed any right-wing ideology that actually acknowledges any duty to the people. The rumsfeld/wolfowitz/bremer bloc have basically defined foreign and domestic policy since Bush I. Domestic policy is just sold to the highest bidder in a sort of corrupted attempt a libertarianism.

Libertarians have an idea, but they fail to acknowledge basic human realities and get co-opted by the right, then triangulated by the left post-Clinton

The only rightward people fighting on the cultural front are the christians. The american right needs a non-religious basis for its cultural positions

libertarianism only exists because "I won't touch your stuff if you don't touch mine, otherwise do whatever you want" is a chimp stupid ruleset and moral virtue signal statement all in one

yeah

in fact I would argue that in terms of memetic technology, libertarianism exists exclusively because it's simple to explain and it affords the chance to virtue signal, since anybody who opposes it wants to ENSLAVE YOU!!! > : (

I think for all but a few actually serious economic theorists, that's true

it's certainly true for Stefan Molyneux-tier and below lmao

well the interesting thing is that normal spergs have been so brainwashed with fairness and universalism that memetic ideologies that feature virtue signaling only succeed when they apply to everyone

Libertarianism is arguably a leftist ideology, in all respects except economics

every year WN tries to remake itself into a meme form and figure out some way to turn "Don't KILL US!!!!" into a virtue signal, but it always fails because people do not count anything favoring whites as virtuous no matter what it is

WN?

jews were the original meme magicians

white nationalists

Libertarianism as a development of Mill's Harm Principle is certainly leftist. They basically just used the assumption that maximizing liberty is a good basis for expanding human happiness and all problems foreseen and unforeseen would be resolved by market principles that governed all human interaction

But there's never any argument that liberty is the basis of human happiness, in fact most of my reading and experience points the other direction

and nobody ever address the problems with actually applying Mill's Harm Principle

or acknowledges that subhumans aren't anything close to rational actors and aren't properly motivated by market principles

yeah

and nobody takes the harm principle out to a long enough time scale

they talk about making sure you don't confiscate your neighbor's goods, but not about making sure somebody doesn't set up their chinese sweatshop upstream of your village and give everyone cancer

because if they extended the nonaggression principle out far enough, it would be against libertarian belief to tolerate homosexuality or racemixing

as those cause harm to the descendants of anybody in the race

Yeah it's a nodal problem. They only look at first order harms. That's why Libertarians are always arguing that people should be able to smoke anything they want; they refuse to acknowledge that people have appetities that they can't appropriately moderate and that immoderation affects others

harms accumulate throughout the system and aren't accounted for