Using the phrase ‘if it was’ (past tense) instead of ‘if it were’ (hypothetical or counterfactual) is possibly the most common error in the english language. Here is a simple explanation of the rule: https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/vs/when-is-it-appropriate-to-use-if-i-were-vs-if-i-was.html. Here is a detailed explanation: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/conditional-sentences-was-instead-of-were/. Here is a related set of rules I just became aware of (fascinating!): https://www.grammarly.com/blog/conditional-sentences/
YourDictionary
If I Was or If I Were: Easy Guide on Appropriate Use
Is it "if I were a rich man" or "if I was a rich man"? Read all about how the subjunctive mood can describe hypothetical situations – and how to choose the best verb form to express your intended meaning.
Those who “trust the science” are implicitly committed to the strange view that, as a mater of principle, science serves their interest. This is as absurd as believing that a hammer (by virtue of being useful) is used in the person’s interest, not for smashing their windows… or heads.
BREAKING NEWS: WEF has revised the concept of ‘15 minute city’ to ‘1.5 meter city’, in order to incorporate the benefits of social distancing. The convenience of ‘1.5 meter city’ will be vastly superior to ‘15 minute city’, as all ratified needs will be available right where you are, typically delivered via a silicone tube, without the need to ever get up.
Amandon Van Andrews, a proud non-binary trans-indigenous and multi-racial spokes-entity from the Urban Inclusion Planing Department of the 1.5 meter City Union of Melbourne has hit out at the “unhinged and hateful” conspiracy theories triggered by the recent announcement of the ‘1.5 meter city’ concept. “These people are deranged. How could anyone misrepresent not having to line up at the checkout at Coles because everything they need is available within arm’s reach, or delivered via a silicone tube right into their digestive orifice, as an evil conspiracy! The 1.5 meter City concept was always only about your convenience.”
Do you believe that Matt Hancock entrusted more than 100,000 of scandalous WhatsApp messages to Isabel Oakeshott, because “he hoped the political journalist would help him write a book to rehabilitate his reputation as a pro-lockdown health secretary during the coronavirus pandemic”, who then inexplicably breached legal confidentiality and published those messages as if Hancock were a petty thief and not an agent of the ruling power? OR, did Matt Hancock entrust more than 100,000 of scandalous WhatsApp messages to Isabel Oakeshott because he was always just a pathetic louse (or worse) hired (or blackmailed) to become a scapegoat for the recent crimes committed by the ruling power, while Isabel’s job was alway just to incriminate him on behalf of the ruling power?
One day, instead of robotic dogs, everyone will have an autonomous, A.I. controlled elephant in their room.
WA government caught selling fake gold. https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/perth-mint-9-billion-australian-gold-bar-purity-scandal/news-story/5335809fb284dba96957c56b68ea8ac9
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Distrust of Authority is Intellectual Humility
Distrusting the authorities and their experts is the most humble intellectual position one can take. You do not claim to know that the government is good, you do not claim to know that the experts are right, you don’t know that, and you know that you don’t know, you admit the limits of your knowledge and the vastness of your ignorance. On the other hand, those who trust the government, those who believe the experts, who repeat the official assertions they cannot possibly know to be true, are dangerously conceited and unhinged, delusional and false, they are political extremists and ideological fanatics, a force of tyranny and evil, the greatest threat to national security and the epitome of inhumanity.
Distrusting the authorities and their experts is the most humble intellectual position one can take. You do not claim to know that the government is good, you do not claim to know that the experts are right, you don’t know that, and you know that you don’t know, you admit the limits of your knowledge and the vastness of your ignorance. On the other hand, those who trust the government, those who believe the experts, who repeat the official assertions they cannot possibly know to be true, are dangerously conceited and unhinged, delusional and false, they are political extremists and ideological fanatics, a force of tyranny and evil, the greatest threat to national security and the epitome of inhumanity.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
One cannot claim ignorance as an excuse for causing harm by acting on the information provided by others if the agent in question did not seek to personally verify that acting on the relevant information will not cause harm. For example, a politician who causes harm by acting on the advice of experts cannot claim that he acted in good faith in trusting the experts; he is personally liable for causing harm because he failed to verify that acting on the relevant information would not cause harm and therefore intentionally acted with indifference to the possibility of harm. Moreover, an agent who affirms and propagates unverified information does so with the intent of propagating it even if it is malicious or false information.
Incompetence or ignorance is not a sufficient defence against the charge of crimes against humanity. This level of harm shifts the burden of proof on those in positions of power, by virtue of their authority and the privileged access to information.
Every local council employee who promotes nativist supremacism with the Welcome to [Their] Country ceremonies should be automatically registered as a full body donor to this cause. Let us see how many ‘sorry’ Greens will jump at this opportunity to prove their moral virtue. The demand should be spectacular, so some kind of an auction to win the right to donate their bodies should be organised. Even Adam Brandt can now prove he is as committed as Christ to atoning for the sins of his people. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/tasmanian-indigenous-artist-seeks-corpse-for-art-installation-to-atone-for-past-sins/news-story/52d7dd828287f2433b5f3b0d551e30ee
✊Interest rates are just too damn low!✊ I propose 100% p.a. official interest rate on all credit/mortgage debt. It is likely the easiest solution to the banking crisis. 100% official interest rate would compel people to borrow only saved funds from one another, either privately or via peer networks, at more reasonable rates of interests. Private lending, unlike bank “loans”, would involve a ‘perfect transfer of purchasing power’ from the lender to the borrower and thus not inflate the money supply. The banks would then have no choice but to follow suit and start practicing honest banking, lending only their capital. Money creation by means of “bank credit” is a licensed form of counterfeiting, expropriating wealth from the entire economy.
All traditional cultures are irrational and totalitarian, demanding unconditional adherence to contingent customs whose function is only to sustain the illusion of moral authority and legitimacy. By implication, culture has social utility commensurate with the degree to which the group is irrational and its moral authority objectively deficient; only then it needs to be repressed and artificially organised, to prevent its disintegration. When the objective, logically indispensable and provable moral norms become commonly discernible, there is no need for the arbitrary constraints of culture; the objective reality of being Human spontaneously takes the place of culture.
https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2261
https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2261
Telegram
Normal
The most irrational aspect of every nation, ethnicity, tribe or identity group is their culture. Once you strip away the culture, down to bare humanity, all people can be reasoned with.
That which is immoral can never be law, therefore can never be constitutional. If a constitution of a nation dictated that killing some innocent people for the benefit of the majority were morally permissible, or dictated that being born human is not a guarantee of human rights, or permitted persecution of humans for their healthy, innate constitution, that nation would deserve to be conquered and subdued by better men, and the sooner the better.
Some of the most popular defenders of “medical freedom” and body autonomy are slowly redirecting the freedom narrative to “vaccine mandates are legal, but this is not a vaccine”. See, for them it is all just about the definition of “vaccine”, not about medical coercion in general. They are happy to inject you, by force if necessary, but only with a ‘real’ vaccine: “No government should be able to mandate a vaccine unless they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the intervention’s benefits outweigh the risks“ (Steve Kirsch) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/are-vaccine-mandates-constitutional
Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Are vaccine mandates constitutional? Yes. But are these "vaccines"?
Aaron Siri debated Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the Berkeley Law School. Neither persuaded the other that he was right. Courts usually trust the government on whether vaccines work. That's the problem.
“Real vaccines” kill people too, even when the benefits outweigh the risks. Vaccine mandates coerce people to participate in an activity in the course of which a percentage of them are expected to die. It is morally irrelevant whether you kill people for the benefit of the majority or for the benefit of the few.
You can believe whomever you like, you can follow the advice of any expert, but the moment you assert that the expert opinion is true, the moment you demand public compliance with someone else’s opinion, you are assuming personal responsibility for the correctness and truthfulness of the opinion. The very fact that you ‘trust’ the opinion of an expert prooves that you have no personal knowledge of the underlying facts, that you do not know that the opinion is not harmful and wrong, and therefore you knowingly promote and enforce claims that could be harmful and wrong, and this alone makes you morally culpable.