On the recent trainwreck about autism.

What’s infuriating is not what Trump declares, that’s simply predictable and therefore boring. Whoever still listens to Trump, on any matter, is doing it in bad faith. Stop wasting your time feeling and then displaying your own outrage, or you’re just willingly taking your role on this performative theater. Stop giving your attention to idiots.

That said, it’s the World Health Organization to be embarrassing and out of time.

This is not science, as this falsely confirms there is some evidence, even if not conclusive.

Trump himself already anticipated this stance, and so already infiltrated it and made it a weapon of rhetoric. Which made his statement a misogynistic one, even before it comes to science. He essentially said that, even in the presence of a DOUBT (paracetamol may or may not be linked to autism) then IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO AVOID IT.

“Pregnant women should tough it out.”

This WHO message would be coherent, not contradicting with Trump statements: “The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes that there is currently no conclusive scientific evidence”

“Currently,” while epistemologically correct, implies that paracetamol could be proven cause of autism tomorrow. To be safe you have to be prudent. Therefore this VALIDATES Trump message.

But the reason I’m wasting my own time, to write here, is because this is built again on something I pointed out over and over: the statement from WHO is REVERSIBLE.

You CANNOT claim to write science with REVERSIBLE STATEMENTS. The WHO is COMPLICIT to Trump, complicit to power and manipulation.

The real problem of that statement is that it is ambivalent and it WILL BE read both ways. It will be read by “partisans” as the WHO lambasting Trump because what he claims has no scientific evidence, same as it will be read by the opposite faction as a SUPPORT FOR CAUTION. Therefore confirming the warning: paracetamol (Tylenol) MAY be linked to autism, we just “aren’t quite sure.”

Trump already won in the presence of doubt, causing women to avoid Tylnol just to be on the safer side. MOST women will do it, because you cannot be wrong by being more prudent.

The full statement also continues to embrace and spread ambiguity:

“WHO recommends that all women continue to follow advice of their doctors or health workers, who can help assess individual circumstances and recommend necessary medicines.”

This statement, that at first glance may be 100% reasonable, is the real root of scientific stupidity, especially within a “guideline” message like this.

DOCTORS AND HEALTH WORKERS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO POLITICAL PROPAGANDA. Just because they are doctors doesn’t mean that they oppose Trump non-scientific guidelines.

STOP USING LOGICAL FALLACIES IN YOUR STATEMENTS. The argument from authority fallacy used here VALIDATES TRUMP.

Telling women to trust their doctors when their doctors are ALSO trapped in the same propagandist machine means DEMANDING WOMEN TO BE VICTIMS.

You don’t give a goddamned guideline by telling people to listen to their doctors who just happen to be zealots.

You give the guideline that Tylenol IS NOT linked to autism as there is NO EVIDENCE for a logical suspicion of a link. That its only motivation IS EXPLOITATIVE POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.

But you are all corrupt instead. All the way down, it’s all corruption and being subservient to power. They’ll call it diplomacy.

Let’s continue, I guess. This is another statement:

This one is, thankfully, not a reversible statement, but it still is A LOGICAL FALLACY.

The word “reputable” is enough to be yet another appeal to authority. It’s implied that a reputable study is one that was done through good methodology, but it’s not explicit. Reputation isn’t science. Methodology is.

You can replace “reputable” with “reliable”, and at least you could own that statement. “Acetaminophen is safe.” (given that “safe” is always contextual, and context is what the rest of the statement provides)

Even worse, the way various mainstream media are carefully wording their own statements. This is one example:

The science “isn’t clear” is then not only false, but just another calculated REVERSIBLE statement, done to serve Trump.

The event itself is of no particular interest to me, but I decided to write about the wider context.

We are, obviously, very deep in the rhetorical phase, but it already took over very tangible things. Lots of people are pissed at Bluesky moderation strategy because of the naturally blurred areas of “hate and violent speech.”

This is one I reposted myself, that I agree with. I’m not one of those who expressed joy over this event, nor this is my opinion. But in this case I defend other people legitimacy of expressing those opinions. Because they do not fall within the area of “hate speech,” or even invocations of violence.

As I said, this also had some tangible repercussions because an actual comics line has been canceled:

https://www.thepopverse.com/comics-red-hood-2-3-orders-cancelled-dc-batman
https://www.tcj.com/horror-it-girl-gretchen-felker-martin-on-dc-pulling-red-hood-after-charlie-kirk-comments-i-had-no-regrets/

This is censorship in full swing, in its most classic form. But the debate itself over these themes can be quite annoying to sift through.

The point is, feeling (and expressing) relief at someone’s death is something entirely legitimate. It’s factual, simple. There’s not even a real emotional connotation to it. From a specific point of view, someone’s death can greatly affect others’ lives around it. Usually seen as a negative impact, but, factually, can be seen equally positive. In this case it’s VERY easy to see it having a positive impact, since this particular individual WAS hellbent on spreading hate and preaching violence, ironically.

Again, this is not MY opinion, because my opinion is very simple and I think in the wider context this will only bring more consensus to Trump. In the best case you can see this as another acceleration on the same path we’re stuck in. So, very simply put: Trump profits from this event. That’s all.

The other topic is again what is or isn’t hate speech, because it’s very important that rules make sense and are applied uniformly. The rules are meant to stand above bias and above faction. So you cannot create contexts where what counts as hate speech for you doesn’t count the same if the intentional action is reversed. As I wrote before, this whole clusterfuck depends on the reversibility of “statements.” The most brutal and stupid example, right now, is BOTH PARTIES accusing the other of political violence. So… Can we stop getting stuck on banal reversibility? (this is solved at another, conceptual level, but it’s also kind of plain to everyone that it’s Trump constantly feeding the fire, BOTH parties know this, just happen that one will just pretend not to know. In this case it’s just very simply hypocrisy in the name of good old interest)

I try to be both complete and objective when I write here, so I’m not dodging the issue. Expressing relief for someone’s death can be seen as a form of encouragement. Because other people could see this positive feedback as encouragement to emulate it. But I see this as implicit in the nature of all things, whether more or less evident. You see some nice paintings and that might encourage you to become an illustrator. That is seen as positive encouragement so no one will find any problem with it, but the “negative” encouragement is still implied in most things and not something you can simply erase. It’s just rhetorical. Right now all left-leaning politicians are busy condemning the violent act. But it’s just “noise” because you cannot truly know if what they say is merely convenient, or something they believe. In the end, when it comes to the function and practice, all those messages are both predictable and completely useless. In the sense they really have no use, no consequence. They mean nothing.

On the other end, Trump’s side is very much busy with INTENTIONAL messages. Taking actions, as consequence. Trump will take this nicely offered chance to be more inflammatory than ever. And to rise the tension.

“We’re going to go on offence, not just on defence. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct. We’re going to raise up warriors, not just defenders.”

(ironically, this was some time ago already)

Expressing relief for someone’s death, or write “rest in piss” do not equal ACTIVE stances. You aren’t taking part in a crime if you simply express that. In a similar way if a bank is being robbed and you are outside applauding, it’s still not an active function. Same as if a policeman is chocking someone to death and there’s an audience around him, someone might applaud the act, and someone instead might denounce it. All these are things debatable on the MORAL level. And the moral level is the one where you need free speech the most. Because you can only deal with it through reason, and you can only reason with things that are manifest.

Violent speech instead is about active stance. Whereas relief for someone’s death is enclosed as an event in the past. The dude is dead. It’s over. There’s no intersection with action unless you EXPLICITLY add that part. If you say “this dude’s dead, you’re next” this latter addition does indeed cross over to violent speech, because it becomes an active threat. A violent act that is IN THE FUTURE. But even if you can imagine someone who expressed relief for someone’s death also be glad for similar acts taking place in the future, this still doesn’t mean you can PROJECT this onto the person. People aren’t guilty of thoughts.

Rules need to be impersonal, so that they can be applied uniformly. And the way these “networks” operate is a real mess of “interpretation” and rules constantly bent in the heat of the moment, or to serve someone in a position of power. Most of everything Trump and his lackeys publicly post on social networks IS violent speech. It just happens to be a tolerated norm.

^ This one smoothly goes into the following:

Smoothly again into this:

(I wish this was more ironical. Because “sending someone to find Jesus Christ” becomes synonymous of capital execution.)

THIS is glorification of violence. THIS is the call for more deaths in the future. “Anyone celebrating violence” is herself, plainly right there. But obviously these claims are not self-referential, because it’s only meant to go downstream: those with the power, to those who suffer it. What these comments imply is, violence AGAINST WHOM? Because violence, as you see right there, is very clearly okay. As long it is violence against someone you dislike, as we’ll see another example just below.

The part that is the most absurd but also plain predictable and banal, is how much interest the death of an individual can concentrate, despite countless other deaths in even more meaningful contexts. On the left side there’s a very often used example of Democrats being shot, a couple months ago I think. As an attempt to counter the idea that violence comes predominantly from the left.

To me, that particular argument looks ridiculous. What I think, within the context of this one present death, is only in the scope of the more recent Venezuelan “drug boat.” The dude who died, two days ago, was one dude. One individual. Reports said that boat had eleven lives on it. Whoever is responsible, Trump or down the chain of command, why aren’t they in jail?

Trump (or whoever) BOMBED a boat with eleven people who weren’t an active, present threat to anyone. ELEVEN. But now we need to get stuck, for DAYS if not weeks, on a rhetorical discussion about one single fucker.

One American kills another American, on one side. One American kills eleven Venezuelans, on the other.
One is arrested and invoked death penalty for. The other is the President of the United States.

(ICE also killed a person in Chicago last week, with no investigation taking place)

The conclusion to all this is that there is no reciprocity in this whole deal. There’s only strength. There’s only violence. It’s always been just violence.

The last few months I’ve seen this side of the faction desperately trying to “win” arguments. Pointing out contradictory statements of politicians, logical fallacies and so on. Even Bernie Sanders still believes this is just “a debate.” How is it possible that the great majority has not understood how pointless this type of fight is? You aren’t fighting against a RATIONAL opponent. Continuing to employ a rational strategy, given the context, is only a complete waste of time. And, consequently, make yourself a moron for having not figured this out already.

Trump’s side operates on two concepts ONLY:
1- Strength
2- Identity

That’s all. All they understand is either strength, which is very immediate and straightforward. And identity, which is trickier. Musk has shown as you can hijack identity to further personal goals. That’s all he’s done. He landed in the political landscape and seized a good chunk of it for himself. People are VERY stupid, so this is possible. But doing so requires operating on manipulation and rhetoric. It only works through a Pied Piper type of figure. It’s radically built on dishonesty.

STOP ARGUING WITH THESE PEOPLE. They do not operate through rationality. You cannot persuade them. You can only move them through contextual shifts. They have no agency. They get moved, they don’t move themselves. So you either hijack their ground, as Musk has done, or you just push them through actual circumstances. NOT WORDS. They feed on fallacies, they THRIVE ON THEM. Don’t feed the trolls.

To conclude, I would repeat what Charles Manson himself famously declared during his own trial: “these are your kids, not mine.” This is your shit, not mine. Everything you sowed is bubbling up.

Enjoy?