[21] AUTISTIC THREAD
ARE YOU COMF(Y) ????
HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS
How about a nice game of Chess?
Do you like CheSS as much as VGE ?
Do you like CheSS as much as [They] do ?
PART ##1 CHESS 2D
- d2. The Queen Gambit -
PART 1 HERE
https://t.co/RWNGx9dZTp
AUTISTIC THREAD
— Remi_1111FR \U0001f438 \U0001f64c \U0001f54a (@film_instant) December 14, 2020
ARE YOU COMF(Y) ????
HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS
CHE[SS] 5D
d5 in CheSS
HERE MY THEORY.
COME PROVE ME WRONG.
PART ##1 CHESS 1D
- d1. The King, The queen & Casimir - pic.twitter.com/fydYVD5j8k
More from Remi_1111FR 🐸 🙌 🕊
Color of the year https://t.co/6jnnf2jJLA
I want to wish you a Happy New Year!!!
— David Guetta (@davidguetta) January 1, 2021
I hope everybody will be healthy in 2021 \U0001f64f\U0001f3fc\U0001f64f\U0001f3fc\U0001f64f\U0001f3fc\U0001f64f\U0001f3fc
SEE YOU SOON ON THE DANCEFLOORS!!!!!!@MuseeLouvre @restosducoeur @UNICEF @PlayStationFR @XiaomiFrance pic.twitter.com/AeLf6wHMaT
More from Trump
💥💥💥Situation Update, Dec. 3rd – Trump invokes foreign interference provision of his 2018 executive order, authorizing military response to cyber warfare, see NSPM 13 💥💥💥 [M.Adams]
⁉️ ✅ Ask yourself this question: What was the purpose of yesterday’s White House speech about election fraud and vote-rigging?
✅ If you think it was all about Trump communicating to the people, think again. This speech was really about Trump communicating with Chris Miller
✅ and the DoD about foreign interference in the U.S. election while laying out the key national security justifications that are necessary to invoke what I’m calling the “national security option” for defending the United States against an attempted cyber warfare coup.
⭕️ Decoding President Trump’s Dec. 2nd speech:
https://t.co/G9kmUfVQzS
🇺🇸Consider what Trump said in yesterday’s speech. About 95% of this speech was filler. Only 5% really matters, as I detail below:
1. First, he lays out that he has a sworn oath to defend the United States
2. Constitution against the wartime “siege” that’s underway:
As President, I have no higher duty than to defend the laws and the constitution of the United States. That is why I am determined to protect our election system, which is now under coordinated assault and siege.
⁉️ ✅ Ask yourself this question: What was the purpose of yesterday’s White House speech about election fraud and vote-rigging?
✅ If you think it was all about Trump communicating to the people, think again. This speech was really about Trump communicating with Chris Miller
✅ and the DoD about foreign interference in the U.S. election while laying out the key national security justifications that are necessary to invoke what I’m calling the “national security option” for defending the United States against an attempted cyber warfare coup.
⭕️ Decoding President Trump’s Dec. 2nd speech:
https://t.co/G9kmUfVQzS
🇺🇸Consider what Trump said in yesterday’s speech. About 95% of this speech was filler. Only 5% really matters, as I detail below:
1. First, he lays out that he has a sworn oath to defend the United States
2. Constitution against the wartime “siege” that’s underway:
As President, I have no higher duty than to defend the laws and the constitution of the United States. That is why I am determined to protect our election system, which is now under coordinated assault and siege.
This is mostly right but strikes me as it needing said that I don't think the left or the intelligentsia have the slightest idea how low institutional trust in anything coming from a left mouthpiece is now. Except in-network, the best heuristic is "the opposite of what they said"
If you look at the situation from a predictive models perspective instead of the more rigorous and appropriate (under normal circumstances) "prove your case or gtfo" perspective, trusting the opposite of whatever the left side says has an AMAZING track record, as we know it.
Literally, the best heuristic most people have right now, in terms of how often it gets things right versus *completely* wrong, is "whatever CNN, the NYT, public health officials, and the Democrats said... yeah, the opposite." That is, they're wrong WAY outside of statistics.
They're also not just wrong. They're *completely* wrong, backwards, often transparently covering something up that they don't want known or refuse to believe. This isn't just a legitimation crisis because there's a heuristic: whatever the official left narrative is, is wrong.
There are a few reasons why such a heuristic would be more predictive than not. One of those is conspiracy, and another is mass hysteria with ideological capture. We know at least one of those is happening and have rather strong evidence both are. That makes conspiracy reasonable
I read part of the transcript of the Trump call.
— Eric Weinstein (@EricRWeinstein) January 4, 2021
The following strikes me.
A) Trump is a true political outsider & the only one to reach the Presidency with zero government experience.
B) There is an obvious open institutional conspiracy to prevent any outsider gaining power.
If you look at the situation from a predictive models perspective instead of the more rigorous and appropriate (under normal circumstances) "prove your case or gtfo" perspective, trusting the opposite of whatever the left side says has an AMAZING track record, as we know it.
Literally, the best heuristic most people have right now, in terms of how often it gets things right versus *completely* wrong, is "whatever CNN, the NYT, public health officials, and the Democrats said... yeah, the opposite." That is, they're wrong WAY outside of statistics.
They're also not just wrong. They're *completely* wrong, backwards, often transparently covering something up that they don't want known or refuse to believe. This isn't just a legitimation crisis because there's a heuristic: whatever the official left narrative is, is wrong.
There are a few reasons why such a heuristic would be more predictive than not. One of those is conspiracy, and another is mass hysteria with ideological capture. We know at least one of those is happening and have rather strong evidence both are. That makes conspiracy reasonable
