Exploits 3
Weapons of Class Warfare: Agitprop
“Okay, Boomer.”
“Okay, Boomer,” is yet another dehumanizing tactic, this time against “baby boomers.”
The TV show, Only Murders in the Building, scripted Selena Gomez to use that lame and nauseating craperoo. It’s something a dupe, or dope, would say, and already an anachronism, like using, “groovy,” or, “jet-setters,” or, “What in the Sam Hill?” Which is why it usually only turns up in print or the media. Checking on what it’s supposed to mean, the computer tells us they justify this insult by saying boomers were somehow children of privilege!
You know it’s something moronic, when it confuses even the computer, that admits it is a myth, and boomers are struggling like everyone else.
If everyone weren’t pretty universally dopey, and you were going to attack specific age brackets, you’d be fair. You’d attack the so-called, “Greatest Generation,” and “the Silent Generation,” which with “Boomers” constitute the first three generations of the 20th century. Greatest generation is a laugh. Greatest chumps, narcissists, no-accounts, sure.
One has to wonder if they sat around thinking, “Oh, yeah, I’m a part of the Greatest Generation. I’m Great.” You never heard them refute it. It was the “Greatest Generation” and “Silent Generation” that went along with every obscene war, every infringement of liberty, every encroachment by government and corporate power. What is striking about them is that they never seemed to learn a single thing outside of base existence requirements, like that necessary for a job. Obstinate, incapable of change, stubborn. Strange lack of curiosity, dogmatism, a lot of narcissism, sociopathy in those groups.
They’d seem to read plenty, but only to pick and choose what reinforced “their” world view, which had also been programmed into them. And that stifled, smothered mindset could pass nothing of value on to the hapless “boomers.” Despicable, really. But nothing has changed. If people were capable of change, the internet should have produced a profound revolution in thought and insight, but, no.
In their day, it was baffling to see their somber discussions of politics, as though they had significant influence in anything. Why their political party was the goody, the other, the baddy. That earnest discourse, conducted like they were some kind of puppet-masters, making earth-shaking decisions with their “democratic votes,” was pure comedy. Not the faintest inkling they were played like fiddles when the Devil went down to Georgia.
“Boomers.” A lazy exploit.
Yes, as they say, it’s generational warfare as a distraction from class warfare. Anything to keep your eye off the ball.
There’re lots of no-goodniks among the boomers, true, but just the same as all the generations.
You can safely categorize anyone who uses the term insultingly as a hopeless tard and ignore him or her.
“Boomer” isn’t the only idiotic catchword. Was it the sixties when this stuff really got rolling with these artificial, unnatural labels? Cringe stuff like, “the mods,” W.A.S.P.s (white anglo-saxon protestants), “the Now generation,” “the Wow generation,” “the Pepsi generation.” This progressed to more recent stuff like, D.I.N.K.s (dual-income no kids), “people of color,” “hip-hop culture.”
Truth from Lies
Our adventures investigating deception and exploitation mean we can be more sophisticated in dealing with such.
One thing that’s been made pretty clear on this blog: We don’t have to struggle and suffer. We can know when things are misleading and untruthful, whether it be in science, the news, current events, history, or what have you.
We can’t be paralyzed by nonsense. Some things we just know from the mouths of the perps themselves, like the moon mission, where they told us they couldn’t get through the Van Allen radiation, needed a rocket a quarter-mile high, they “lost the telemetry,” and we can’t go back, because reasons. They had a Tinkertoy computer supposedly directing all this mission, and, more importantly, they never proved anything they claimed. A few shadowy images on a TV screen prove nothing.
For the sleepy brains, know this: You’d welcome attempts to disprove the moon missions, or anything, for that matter, if legit, but the NASA types and their sycophants inevitably resort to ad hom attacks against anyone who dares question them.
"I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology, and it's a painful process to build it back again."
- astronaut Don Pettit
A Proposal
Nope, we don’t have to sit around bemoaning inequities when they arise. The system is often geared to enable exploits and cheats and it’s disingenuous nonsense that allows it to continue. You’d almost think it was assembled and maintained by con artists.
Back in Chess Cheats, we encountered an outrageous exploit that involves paralysis via nonsense.
In that controversy, Magnus Carlsen had the fear that opponent Niemann was cheating. So, if Maggie said Niemann cheated on the chessboard, then he cheated on the chessboard. “Yet,” squeak the sycophants and fan-boys, “there’s no way to be completely sure!” “There’s absolutely no evidence of such a thing!”
Lack of evidence.
Well, there isn’t a lack of evidence, since Maggie felt Niemann was cheating, and that is evidence. Yes, having more concrete evidence is a concern, but it doesn’t mean you give up.
Carlsen: non-cheater. Niemann: known, admitted cheater. Yet Carlsen is the man who takes most of the heat. Funny, that. A true expert, one of the best equipped to detect cheating, but his expertise counted for nothing.
It’s like the system was deliberately structured to foment chicanery, giving cheats an easy ride. When there is a problem, instead of suffering paralysis, you deal with it and reason out a rational, tangible solution. In the case of cheating at games, sports, intellectual pursuits, we look at the rules, and how to modify them to make some kind of sense.
They’ve got plenty of time to devise all manner of trivia, like how players aren’t allowed to wear jeans, but, like most facets of society, don’t pay attention to the things that matter.
They trot out the smarmy, “We can’t be absolutely sure that he cheated, so we have to give him the benefit of the doubt,” hogwash.
We need to have a way for people who call out cheaters, to have their voices heard, to be acknowledged in a tangible way. Remember, another titled player called out Niemann on suspicion of cheating, beforehand, but was ignored.
But we also have to set up rational rules to avoid frivolous accusations.
If someone is willing to put something on the line, have a penalty for being in error, like Maggie, that’s a fair criterion.
He had to leave a tournament, missing out on prize money, and put his reputation on the line, in order to accuse Niemann, so there was a legit stake in his accusation.
The solution is obvious, if anyone puts a fragment of thought into it. Instead of giving, for example, Niemann, the benefit of the doubt, you give Maggie the benefit. Makes more sense, because even if Niemann is done wrong in that one case, as a proven and admitted cheater, he can hardly cry foul.
It’s a magnificent distraction, isn’t it? We have to give the benefit of the doubt! And the more stridently this is screeched, the better for the deceivers and weasels. Yes, give the benefit of the doubt, but to the right person!
Modifications to the rule book would go a long way to balancing the scales, something sorely needed.
Simply establish a philosophy that corrects the misuse of the idea of “the benefit of the doubt.” Any accuser should. of course, face the requirement of a stake, a risk, if proven wrong, to prevent a free-for-all of nonsense by sore losers. This would have the beneficial effect of slowly weeding out the whiners like the neurotic, paranoid Kramnik, over time. (Note: There is precedent for this strategy. For example, in civil court, it’s only required you have a preponderance of the evidence to win.)
Putting this into action, say with the Carlsen-Niemann chess match, Carlsen should have had the option to void the result. And everything, before, during and after the match should have been scrutinized, as part of the established rules going in.
The evidence was so strong against Niemann in that instance, though, despite what his groupies say, that there was no need for doubt. He made mechanical, computer moves at an unnatural pace. He wasn’t even concentrating on the game. Then, he manufactured some nonsense that he had, by pure luck, studied a similar game of Maggie’s the night before, when no such game existed. He couldn’t even explain or remember his own moves and strategies, immediately after the game!
This reasoning should be applied to all games and sports, the problem is definitely not limited just to competitive chess. And stop with the nonsensical hand-wringing which only makes the regulators look like the simpering fools that they are.
Comments