[wonder_er]

if a group of people (deputized slave patrols) is harassing and kidnapping another group of people (anyone perceived to be non-white), and I am talking about it, is it _me_ who is stupid, malicious, and detracts from the discussion, or is it the slave patrollers and their supporters who are stupid and malicious?

I think it's the latter.

[bpt3]

I have to assume you have absolutely no interest in being taken seriously by at least 99% of the US population, given that you are making statements like these regularly and they do not appear to be satire?

I took the time to read a couple articles on your blog, and they are wildly inflammatory and inaccurate to put it mildly.

[wonder_er]

i write for me.

I don't find most people in the USA to be worth taking seriously, either. Liiiike if someone thinks the primary purpose of police is something like "protecting and serving" vs. being deputized slave patrollers.

How could I take that person seriously?

If I don't think political authority is real, and 90% of the us population does think it is real, and votes, I'm already out of sync with all of those people.

And I've got at least one or two additional hot takes that could alienate another few percentage points.

race and gender are constructs of supremacy thinking, the US government commits 100x more acts of terrorism than the next most terroristic group, evangelicalism is a cult, all religion is self-and-other harming, monogamy is way over-rated, marriage is harmful to everyone...

honestly, I'd be concerned if it seemed like lots of people agreed with me, especially lots of people in America! One doesn't get a nation that did 400+ years of chattel slavery without most people being pro-slavery.

[bpt3]

> i write for me.

You sure use an awful lot of self-citations for someone who is only writing for themselves.

> I don't find most people in the USA to be worth taking seriously, either. Liiiike if someone thinks the primary purpose of police is something like "protecting and serving" vs. being deputized slave patrollers. How could I take that person seriously?

You realize you both can be wrong, correct? Because you absolutely are in most of the US, for starters.

> If I don't think political authority is real, and 90% of the us population does think it is real, and votes, I'm already out of sync with all of those people.

So you don't think political authority is real, yet you work with government authorities to enact the changes you want to see in your area?

I mean it makes sense to me to advocate for your preferred solutions to problems, but I think political authority is real (because it is, just look around you).

> And I've got at least one or two additional hot takes that could alienate another few percentage points.

Yes, it's very clear that pretty much everything you say is poorly thought out and researched and designed almost entirely to incite a strong reaction and attract attention. I agree with some of your claims and disagree with others, but there's no point in discussing any of them in depth with you.

What was your first claim again?

[wonder_er]

I write for me, or the me of a few years ago.

It sounds like you think I use more self-citation than you would expect, for someone writing only for themselves.

Are you saying I'm wrong about police originating as deputized slave patrollers?

I suppose I'd refine my statement from "political authority is not real" to "political authority _is not legitimate_."

That someone holding the fantasy of political authority is willing to murder someone else because of that fantasy doesn't make political authority legitimate, though it's obviously 'real' from the POV of the oppressor/victim.

My first claim was that 'jaywalking' is a propagandist term that actively harms every subsequent part of the conversation. It's a slur ('jay'), and supports a narrative supporting, basically, vehicular homicide.