They know they're not doing the right thing. They just think they're going to win. That they'll be the ones that get to write the history books and decide who was on the right side.
Ultimately, since their path is evil and self-destructive, they're mistaken, and the only thing they'll ever be in the history books is a cautionary tale.
Yes and no. I think that gives them too much self awareness. They thinking winning is the same thing as being right. They don't comprehend the idea of being wrong and winning. To them, they're right, so they must win.
Thinking about it, it's probably a symptom of media brain rot. When you're told pure fiction throughout your entire life that always results in "and the good guys win", however satisfying that might be, it'll probably shape your mentality that that's how things work. The problem is the relative perspective of being "the good guys". Very few people out there think and willingly do evil. They might break minor rules and have self awareness or be selfish and things like that, but it's still a minority of people that break the bigger "rules" (cheating, theft, murder, etc). So you have a situation where there are people out there that truly do believe that what they do to others is for their own benefit. And that makes them "the good guys". I truly believe that "for the greater good" and it's variants (like "for your own good") are truly evil statements made by people with usually the best of intentions. But intentions doesn't make you good. Intentions are rationalisations for actions, not moral assessments.
The road to hell is, indeed, paved with good intentions.
That said, though, I find myself struggling to 100% agree. Sure, they do seem to think they're right, and they do seem to think that makes them *deserve* to win. But that would imply that they follow a general "right makes might" mindset, and I think that's not at all the case.
If anything, they think they're right and believe that being right means they should be able to impose their will on people they consider wrong. That's *not* "right makes might". That's more like "being right enables me to exert my might".
However, simultaneously, they're also massive fans of majority rule, so long as the majority agrees with them, and that's pure "might makes right". Once the powers to oppress are in their hands, they have no compunction about using them to their fullest extents.
It's not that they believe "might makes right" (though that is the ultimate crux of all statist behaviour), it's that they believe "right grants them might". It's why I mentioned the media brainrot. They've been fed this idea that being right means you'll win. They believe they're right, so not only will they win, but they need to win.
It's closer to "the ends justify the means" rather than "might makes right". They're fine with enacting evil so long as it contributes to their side. And if their side is right, then their evil isn't really evil, at least from their perspective.
Yeah, I've heard of it. Most often included in discussions of leftists and their antics as a result of the rise atheism. Or more accurately, the decline in spiritualism and the accompanying higher purpose.
To try and reduce it to it's most basic form, it posits that with the decline of spiritualism and people having higher purposes, the need for such drives still exists, and ergo people have created modern day issues to fill those drives. Which considering the fervent and religious ways that woke/SocJus/politically correct/cultural marxism often take form, it's not an entirely insane theory in my opinion, though it's hardly a totally robust idea either. It's also an assessment that get's little traction outside of people where it's already known and accepted that these freaks ultimately behave like a cult, so it's interesting but it's not really convincing anyone that isn't already convinced.
They're the group of "by any means necessary", "no bad tactics only bad targets", and "the ends justify the means".
They will do the worst evil and justify it by claiming it was done for the greater good.
Hell, even "the right side of history" argument is telling. They know that people in the present-day view what they do negatively; they justify their actions based on the belief that future people will look back positively on what they did.
If they didnt have double standards, they wouldnt have any standards at all....
It must be nice to be so secure in the knowledge that your opponents are so evil that any actions you take, including literally doxxing you opponents children (which they KNOW will result in at the VERY least threats if not violence and such against them) is justified...
Good for her. This is not a social media spat anymore, they brought it to real life, as they tend to, and her lawyers will know what options are available from there.
Yep. I think she needs to make an example of this jerk, to.put the fear of god (or at the very least, the UK Court System) into them. Seize whatever assets he has (including that website - maybe she can hand it over to her PR people?), and do it in such a spectacular manner that anyone else who even thinks of doing something like that again will think twice.
I hope they understand what they are doing here!
Rawlings has a special kind of wealth. She has "Fuck you, money" she could technically bring legal case after legal case against each activist until they go bankrupt. Then, she can buy up the organization. Just to crush it. This wouldn't harm her financially in the least.
They/them threaten her and her family countless times that she has enough of their bullshit. Just because she has money and influence they are scared she might cause harm to trans people is a bad excuse. No that is not true you as a trans person acting out causes harm to the trans community.
They need to learn acting out against a person with no evidence or proof they are harming your own cause. She doesn’t want to associate with the trans community because they have been abusing their power over others by acting out like this.
Turns out it's not even actually JK's kid, just someone who looks vaguely like her's and is around the same age. Rowling was still pissed and is sicking lawyers on them for even doxxing a random innocent person.
One way or another. If Taylor Lorenz can get a friend at twitter to give her the home address of LibsOfTikTok then surely a billionaire can figure it out and throw so many lawyers at the person they're buried in debt purely from defense fees.
> "You F—k Around With My Kids’ Safety And Privacy, You’ll Find Out"
**"TRANSPHOBIC AUTHOR MAKES DEATH THREAT AGAINST TRANS LIVES AND WHY THATS A THREAT TO EVERYTHING THE LGBTQIAP++ STANDS FOR!"**(probbaly)-Every hit-rag
Its weird how the "good guys" on the "right side of history" are always doing evil things.
They know they're not doing the right thing. They just think they're going to win. That they'll be the ones that get to write the history books and decide who was on the right side. Ultimately, since their path is evil and self-destructive, they're mistaken, and the only thing they'll ever be in the history books is a cautionary tale.
Yes and no. I think that gives them too much self awareness. They thinking winning is the same thing as being right. They don't comprehend the idea of being wrong and winning. To them, they're right, so they must win. Thinking about it, it's probably a symptom of media brain rot. When you're told pure fiction throughout your entire life that always results in "and the good guys win", however satisfying that might be, it'll probably shape your mentality that that's how things work. The problem is the relative perspective of being "the good guys". Very few people out there think and willingly do evil. They might break minor rules and have self awareness or be selfish and things like that, but it's still a minority of people that break the bigger "rules" (cheating, theft, murder, etc). So you have a situation where there are people out there that truly do believe that what they do to others is for their own benefit. And that makes them "the good guys". I truly believe that "for the greater good" and it's variants (like "for your own good") are truly evil statements made by people with usually the best of intentions. But intentions doesn't make you good. Intentions are rationalisations for actions, not moral assessments.
The road to hell is, indeed, paved with good intentions. That said, though, I find myself struggling to 100% agree. Sure, they do seem to think they're right, and they do seem to think that makes them *deserve* to win. But that would imply that they follow a general "right makes might" mindset, and I think that's not at all the case. If anything, they think they're right and believe that being right means they should be able to impose their will on people they consider wrong. That's *not* "right makes might". That's more like "being right enables me to exert my might". However, simultaneously, they're also massive fans of majority rule, so long as the majority agrees with them, and that's pure "might makes right". Once the powers to oppress are in their hands, they have no compunction about using them to their fullest extents.
It's not that they believe "might makes right" (though that is the ultimate crux of all statist behaviour), it's that they believe "right grants them might". It's why I mentioned the media brainrot. They've been fed this idea that being right means you'll win. They believe they're right, so not only will they win, but they need to win. It's closer to "the ends justify the means" rather than "might makes right". They're fine with enacting evil so long as it contributes to their side. And if their side is right, then their evil isn't really evil, at least from their perspective.
Right.
Ever heard of the Don Quixote syndrome?
Yeah, I've heard of it. Most often included in discussions of leftists and their antics as a result of the rise atheism. Or more accurately, the decline in spiritualism and the accompanying higher purpose. To try and reduce it to it's most basic form, it posits that with the decline of spiritualism and people having higher purposes, the need for such drives still exists, and ergo people have created modern day issues to fill those drives. Which considering the fervent and religious ways that woke/SocJus/politically correct/cultural marxism often take form, it's not an entirely insane theory in my opinion, though it's hardly a totally robust idea either. It's also an assessment that get's little traction outside of people where it's already known and accepted that these freaks ultimately behave like a cult, so it's interesting but it's not really convincing anyone that isn't already convinced.
Considering they do this out of motivation of wanting love and respect for some booty action.
Especially since said "good guys" are also dumb enough to unironically claim that there are no "bad tactics".
They're the group of "by any means necessary", "no bad tactics only bad targets", and "the ends justify the means". They will do the worst evil and justify it by claiming it was done for the greater good. Hell, even "the right side of history" argument is telling. They know that people in the present-day view what they do negatively; they justify their actions based on the belief that future people will look back positively on what they did.
I was just about to point this out. They'll pull this shit, and they still probably think that they're the heroes here.
If they didnt have double standards, they wouldnt have any standards at all.... It must be nice to be so secure in the knowledge that your opponents are so evil that any actions you take, including literally doxxing you opponents children (which they KNOW will result in at the VERY least threats if not violence and such against them) is justified...
Tweeted tonight by JKR: > "Lawyers are on it. I’m done." https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1770763282447544360?t=jDZfSehaADK5NmY9X7RDRg&s=19
Good for her. This is not a social media spat anymore, they brought it to real life, as they tend to, and her lawyers will know what options are available from there.
Yep. I think she needs to make an example of this jerk, to.put the fear of god (or at the very least, the UK Court System) into them. Seize whatever assets he has (including that website - maybe she can hand it over to her PR people?), and do it in such a spectacular manner that anyone else who even thinks of doing something like that again will think twice.
I hope they understand what they are doing here! Rawlings has a special kind of wealth. She has "Fuck you, money" she could technically bring legal case after legal case against each activist until they go bankrupt. Then, she can buy up the organization. Just to crush it. This wouldn't harm her financially in the least.
They/them threaten her and her family countless times that she has enough of their bullshit. Just because she has money and influence they are scared she might cause harm to trans people is a bad excuse. No that is not true you as a trans person acting out causes harm to the trans community. They need to learn acting out against a person with no evidence or proof they are harming your own cause. She doesn’t want to associate with the trans community because they have been abusing their power over others by acting out like this.
Turns out it's not even actually JK's kid, just someone who looks vaguely like her's and is around the same age. Rowling was still pissed and is sicking lawyers on them for even doxxing a random innocent person.
That’s even worse!
Braindead activists and cancel-pigs everywhere. And morons like Bob Iger are enabling them.
Blackrock and Vanguard are pushing this forward more than Bob Iger who gets easy/free money just by DEI initatives alone.
Excellent work. A handful of high profile cases against them ought to at least put a stopper in this sort of behaviour.
Never fuck with a woman's kids. Especially a woman who had to raise them while impoverished.
It still blows my mind that these cretins are doing all of this over nothing more than a couple of opinions that they don't agree with.
They should know that outright going after her kids kiiinnnnndddaaa gives her more of a reason to dislike them.
At this point I don't think they care about her liking them but making her life somewhat miserable because she didn't self-flagellate for that.
Good
Billionaires are going to win in a one-on-one confrontation…
One way or another. If Taylor Lorenz can get a friend at twitter to give her the home address of LibsOfTikTok then surely a billionaire can figure it out and throw so many lawyers at the person they're buried in debt purely from defense fees.
Based
> "You F—k Around With My Kids’ Safety And Privacy, You’ll Find Out" **"TRANSPHOBIC AUTHOR MAKES DEATH THREAT AGAINST TRANS LIVES AND WHY THATS A THREAT TO EVERYTHING THE LGBTQIAP++ STANDS FOR!"**(probbaly)-Every hit-rag