(0537) Morning all. (0617)

 

2. Seven seemingly unrelated, unsorted snippets

They were there in passing, often within someone’s reply … still worth showing … no urls, you’ll just have to guess the topic:

Quick notation here … if you’d like to quote from this item later, please apply your own lettering, even if I’ve not physically put it between sub-items, sshots. For example, say you wanted to put a comment elsewhere, quoting Kelvin MacKenzie, then it’s far easier to just write “Sun 2c” or after a few days, maybe “Apr 6, HQ, 2c”.

If you’d like readers to know to what you’re referring, then you need to signpost well. With some of you, the unherdable defiance kicks in and you simply do NOT wish to following any signposting method I seem to lock you into … fine, fine … as long as your own method is clear to readers.

1. The issues with capturing, gathering, collating

This is for all “droppers”, article writers, long commenters, short commenters at HQ, from the “chief cook and bottle washer” here. Every so often I must bore you with procedural things … but needs must.

First issue is that sources are so often snippets … and though I’m loathe to edit, a high sounding term for censor, often that source material contains insta-triggers for censorious bots which govt and platform providers put out to trap and trigger swat teams and/or close down sites, delete posts etc. etc. etc.

Against that, there is the rightfully seething anger in sane people … those in the land who can observe what’s going on and are clearly being provoked by bad players, let’s call them. Straight to Roger Scruton again:

Now I’m terribly sorry to our good droppers here but this is very, very real and bad players are poised to scan and troll, to censor on the slightest pretext … much of it coming down to the pundit’s “reach”. There is also a time factor … I find much which is fluttering by, ephemerally, I capture, post, the page changes … chances are that if you don’t get it the first time, then it stays ungotten.

Point of all this? For us to stick around, we do have to learn to euphemise. Yes, for sure, it’s more pure and honourable to shout it in all its anger, calling a spade a spade, but that’s also a surefire way for Them, not me, to block you, block me … and send round the boys early morn.

Second issue is simply technical … look first at this quote from the leftwing Quora and commenter Brian Overland, March 12th:

“There certainly have been some actors who are not nice people and have been difficult to get along with (or have the reputation of being that way). HOWEVER, I suspect that truly psychopathic actors who are fine actors tend to be rare. Because… acting, perhaps more than any other activity, depends on the ability to be able to imagine what it FEELS like to be in another person’s shoes.

Consequently, I would expect a really gifted actor to frequently have the thought, “I can understand why a person might feel that way.”

Now, what is the state of being a psychopath? I’ve learned that it is not the condition of being evil or dangerous, necessarily. It is a neurological condition that makes it harder to empathize deeply with another person.

People with this “neural atypical” condition CAN (if properly raised) be law-abiding citizens and avoid harm to other people… basically they have been raised to clearly understand long-term consequences. Deep empathy may come more slowly to these people than others, but they can be raised to be good citizens.”

To capture those words and get them to the stage of “fair use” took me nigh on half an hour just now … just for the quote alone. Yet I can capture whole, page long screeds from other sources in under three minutes. Why? Technical barriers … one who puts them in is Miles Mathis, another is Corey, Quora certainly do it, so do any using a “block” system of text, rather than just an ordinary copy and paste.

I also nearly forgot the author and date. Always assume here at HQ … that if unstated, it’s at least this current month and current year … if not, I’ll try to signpost that. The law itself changes the whole time regarding everything from copyright to defamation but “fair use” still applies. It’s a constant battle for any serious pundit.

Thirdly, there is the nuisance of amateurs with not a clue about typeface size, for example:

White on black is awful, technically, as is huge typeface … ordinarily, I’d go to text for that but this was just to illustrate. Also, any screenshot has quite a chance of containing trigger words which bots look for … if you tried it in comments, you might be blocked by the machine, almost never by me, myself, I.

I’m thinking, dear reader/dropper, that you’re getting the drift, yes. Free speech? Well of course but at the risk of being snuffed out early? Does an officer in the field of battle wear a top hat and neon sign saying “boss here, sitting target”?

Sometimes the outraged pundit, e.g. dear young Charlie Bentley-Astor, girl journo, one of the upcoming finest or else thirty month jailbird, renders her copy nearly unusable because it’s peppered with hurty trigger words. Ok, nuff for now on this. …/END.