Mirroring Case Study #3: Lame Duck Diary
(Facebook Diary)
Preface:
I covered so much ground and yet there is so much left to enjoy discussing. I’m optimistic for my country on Facebook that it will continue to be rewarding, especially if I can occasionally drag ideologues from both sides to more reason and pragmatism. And who couldn’t thank the Community and Safety Standards, coming from a small, private, ma and pa, big-tech company/bakery like Facebook, who are just selectively protecting us all from information that we can’t handle and the Russian bots, who seem oddly quiet lately.
This whole philosophy is a product of the politics of the Trump era, after-all Volume I was from 2017, though not as a partisan reaction one way or another. There will certainly be a need for more Mirroring and more case studies as I’m pretty sure I’ll escape future de-programming or loyalty oaths and will still be able to post largely unmolested because I'm more a cult leader than a follower (just kidding).
Don’t worry, “silence isn’t violence.” In this case, it’s just a slippery slope fallacy as so much political trust has been built up these past years by everyone, especially in the media, the real or shadow governments, or big tech that I won’t worry about anyone cultifying me because of their superior judgment, careful and accurate consideration of my words, or the pursuit of the truth over feelings. So, I doubt I’ll be next.
I think part of what makes the diary format so interesting to me is that not only can no one see what I’m thinking because I follow the privacy practices (though not their illogical, predictable, or lazy meme cop-outs), the common decency, and non-snarkiness enjoyed by many politics posters on Facebook and Instagram. Yet, I also think it's fascinating mostly because though I might know the arguments from both sides better than the true believers, I learn some new way of twisting information every day, or empowering a few glittering generalities with so much meaning on a meme that they make that person want to orgasmically explode with agreement, or finding the sweet spot of predictability that no late night host could ever match after making the 46th post for the day.
Checking through my Facebook Diary of the past few weeks I realized
I had only touched the tip…..(that’s what she said). I wrote about demanding harmony and unity and NOT peace. I explored the possibilities of turning my Facebook powers over to my enemies using the exact language of the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution and some common sense logic. And I created a self-help Accountability Equation so that people can use simple math and decide on social media just what level of accountability they will want to demand from their opponents. And I gave them an opportunity to fantasize about punishment with the Retribution Scale. A different style for each post!
Yet, there is more to explore. For example with my entry on a moot, retro-impeachment, there are so many instances throughout world history of retro vengeance that I wish I had more time to explore ages ago on the 8th of January during infinite lock-down. Were I to travel back in time if it was possible (it’s not), one of the few things I’d change about my social media would be to label my impeachment entry as “The Cadaver Impeachment Synod” because it’s pithy and references a part of history almost no one would recognize.
The Cadaver Synod of 897 was when vengeful Pope Stephen VI dug up a hated predecessor, Formosus, and put the rotting corpse on trial. Originally, Formosus was to be punished as a bishop because another power-hungry pope passed a law making it a religious crime to “aspire to the papacy.” He ascended anyways to the highest office in a violent and brutal time where many leaders had their castles stormed by rival mobs.
Now obviously historical parallels are usually inaccurate because they lose context in favor of cherry picking one or two elements of similarity and I’m certainly not likening the so-called Pornocracy, or so the papacy of the 9-10th centuries is known, to 2020-1 America other than for the purpose of avoiding beating a dead horse into absurdity by labeling it as needless and divisive. However, I like the title especially if a living Trump is unconstitutionally prevented from “aspiring to the presidency” or other high public office after being unconstitutionally tried while not serving in office. I’m sure Pope Stephen VI ensured that the soul of the Catholic Church was restored by trying a corpse and proving his predecessor worthy of excommunication and eternal damnation in hell. I think the lesson from good old Stephen VI is that sometimes partisans just have to do what their immortal souls and consciences irrationally require them to do.
Perhaps, the disqualification aspect makes that analogy
interesting. Or maybe when Russians shot the ashes
of False Dimitri I (the Polish Dimitri) from a canon in the direction of Poland
during Russia’s Time of Troubles (1598-1613) that such an example would suffice for extreme vengeance. Yet, perhaps the most relevant retro
punishment from history would be the extreme lengths that Emperor Kangxi went
to punish Khan Galdan of the Dzungar Khaganate of Central Asia (whose people
would be exterminated in the 1750s by Qing dynasty China). Not only was Galdan’s corpse ritually torn
apart, but the ashes were ceremonially placed on the roads of the capital for
the military to parade over. Interestingly enough, Kangxi's grandson, Emperor Qianlong, was similarly obsessed with his enemies to the
point of war with the Russia Empire just to recover the frozen corpse of the last rebel Dzungar
Khan, Amursana. With the Dzungar genocide
complete, the leader’s un-desecrated body was the last incomplete mission of accountability for rebellion and insurrection against ones' overlord. So who knows about now.
Finally, why is this a mirroring case study? I’ve used multiple volumes of my own work in
reference to ongoing events. Not only are
key concepts from them validated by our subjects’ approaches to these issues
over the past two weeks, but even the Case Study #1 on impeachment is relevant
because of its discussion of Hamilton's Federalist papers, partisanship, and increasing the viability
of the impeachment articles and trial by lessening partisan divides and
increasing the fairness of the process. In my impeachment entry, Hamilton would probably roll over in his grave if he read what happened for the second try. So, let's get on with it!
My method of Mirror Diary writing:
Pick a political topic that is most urgent, most irrational and unreasonable, and most conducive to ignoring facts.
Provide at least 1 source for constitutional, history posts, or cite lengthier explanations from this blog where sources are also provided.
Reference four volumes of Political mirroring where topics can be further elaborated.
Record and estimate the time to read the entries not to run out a clock and keep occupied those thinking absurdly, but so they understand the estimated time they'll invest for their own benefit.
Complete a minimum of 5 stand-alone journals in approximately 14 days, starting arbitrarily on 1/6/2020, seemingly another quiet day or the worst day in American history, and arbitrarily ending on 1/20/2020, another ho-hum day or a great cleanser, where 25,000 National Guard troops may be assembled in a place where they previously were not be wanted to be present, and of course only those of non-suspect ideological qualities, all to make sure this entry is posted and secure.
Here are the topics of the 5 entries, not including this preface. They cover a variety of issues:
Entry #1: 1/7/2021, "Understanding the desire for MORE than peace"
Entry #2: 1/8/2021, "Making the 25th work with a vengeance"
Entry #3: 1/10/2021, "Incited to write about incitement."
Entry #4: 1/14/2021, "The 2021 Cadaver Impeachment Synod: Impeaching history and fantasizing constitutionality"
Entry #5: 1/17/2021, "Using basic math to achieve Accountability: exercises in retribution and self-care for public or private persons."
Source:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/morbid-monday-cadaver-synod
Entry #1: 1/7/2021, "Understanding the desire for MORE than peace"
Dear Facebook Diary:
For the record, today is the 6-7th of what month I don't know. I thought somehow today would be different. I mean, I didn't act, think, or feel any differently today(s) than this past summer about the things I chose not to see or understand, nor ten minutes ago when I posted for the 20th time this morning to people who think like me about opinion news broadcasters that also think like me. But somehow I thought my limited understanding of past things, my acceptance of their inconsistency and hypocrisy, my version of logic and rational thought, and my memes would suddenly get my enemies to listen to my scolding and debase themselves and their worth. I just can't understand why there isn't unity with me? Why CAN there just be peace?
Entry #2: 1/8/2021, "Making the 25th work with a vengeance"
(estimated reading time for this entry: 12 days)
Dear Facebook Diary:
I want to write to you about the 25th and some questions other people have about my ability to keep on posting solely based on this one Letter. Gosh, I read its text just once and it seems pretty clear, though I’m certain others have already cut out some of the words and made art with some glue sticks and pipe cleaners in ways that are more pleasing to them. As a whole, I’m fairly certain it has only been tested in very narrow cases for other posters. Basically to use it, I wouldn't be able to physically write more posts because of a disability or if I quit or was dead and had to turn my Facebook over to a close caretaker who could blog for me about similar content.
But I don't know, maybe it's time I go against my history, our history since 1967, and the elementary school reading-level required of its text because there's so much hope regardless of what it actually says or what my pence pals will likely do? Hear me out, Self (Matthew).
For the heck of it, I (we) took a mental inventory and tried to find a way to use this Letter to make other journals satisfied. First, let me get this straight. I assure you, Diary, I'm in possession of the full range of my capabilities. And I believe I'm in every way able to exercise my powers to keep on writing as normal until the end. I kept writing in spite of the serious illness I shrugged off in the Fall, when some journals asked yet again about me and the 25th. And throughout I continued to behave as other journals have always said I behaved, which to them was mentally unfit to post. And even then, and much to their misfortune, I kept writing.
So, the 25th is pretty much irrelevant then, right?
NOT so fast! I'm starting to wonder if I should voluntarily put the questioning of my own abilities into writing like sections 3 and 4 of the Letter require because other Facebook journals say I should. So tempting to destroy my own Facebook now because of the 25th! However, I still doubt that I would just up and delete my Facebook after all that writing, so quitting isn’t an option.
Diary, I'll need to work out some issues we’re likely to have. With all of the writing that Section 3 requires, the real hazard is that I’d show I’m still capable of writing. And I'm not sure the other journals would realize that I'd have to lie to myself by writing that statement in order to say I was unable to continue writing. Why would I lie to you, Diary? I don’t think I’m delusional, so don’t you worry yet.
However, now that I have written this secretly to you, if this ever got out, wouldn’t I be violating my oath to serve by saying I was unable to write when I really was able because I knew I was and I’m writing about it here? And I’m not certain if my loyal pence pals would interpret their own oaths any differently than I would mine or theirs.
Eeeek, the oath paradox!
But what if I DID have the letter written and I somehow found a way to keep my oath to serve while having the writing done for me? Following Section 3, what if I temporarily passed my screen-name and its power over to my mostly loyal #2 (usually an avid follower of my posts) giving him/her temporary power and we just hush hushed the violation of our oaths strictly about the matter of the 25th? I think that’s exactly what the other journals want, just permanently in #2’s favor instead and with more oath-breaking.
Then when my act is over with, I expressly write a second letter as per Section 4 that I’m back in business and #2 steps back. All of that might seem too apparent and easy as to the orderly transfer of Facebook power because you know, the words of the Letter say it is? Yet, the journals might not be happy that their Warhol-style of the 25th’s interpretation isn’t fulfilled with all of the power rotations being so stable, logical, and colorless. What’s the pop-art solution to the legal situation, kiddos?
BOOM, ignore pesky Section 3 altogether and focus on the last parts of Section 4! When the Letter was written way back when, they must’ve had this exact situation in mind, basically my pence pals wresting Facebook power from me when I’m capable of posting and regardless of their oaths, instead of the more obvious and smarter conclusions that I’d either have to express my inability to perform my duties in writing or if I ever should be unable, like if I got shot, took mind-altering pain killers, and couldn’t post coherently because medically, I’m on death’s doorstep, then my pence pals would perform my writing duties until I returned and wrote again or died, thus making #2 the #1 poster.
Yet despite the clear logic of the simpler way, I have this creeping suspicion that the 25th was purposefully designed to take away writing powers from me when I’m able and force a power struggle that would destabilize my posts and all of Facebook. Gosh, how did the writers of Section 4 know so much about the gold star and glitter journals of today that also wanted that? Those journals are really on to something by blindly latching on to the purposefully lengthy, difficult, and complex part of Section 4 and my pence pals willingly destroying Facebook after undergoing a dramatic personality shift.
Their win-win and I lose seems best however as all groups would be happy, other than history, precedent, and me. But it seems more satisfying to other journals and my pence pals to dethrone me, perchance because their new, out-of-character interpretation of their oaths contradicts the reality of my own oaths and my clear abilities to keep on keeping on. Or whatever justification they choose at the time, which is of course up to them and has nothing to do with me or my Facebook even though the 25th is about me and my Facebook.
After such a convincing argument and the clear desirability of allowing the pence pals to betray and remove me after a savage process, it's vastly more attractive to pick the option where I wouldn’t have to violate my oath by lying that I was unable to write my letter while Facebook burns down around you and I, Diary.
What to do, what to do?
(Estimated reading time: 10 days)
Dear Facebook Diary:
I’m incited to write about a new enthusiasm finding its way into our pet-loving community: The Constitution! Since at least June, a broad interpretation of speech incitement has unfortunately not been present, nor a concern that property destruction isn’t legitimate speech when before last week it was considered by many to be legitimate speech, but at least now things are fueling up to be better.
Now, thankfully, almost any speech can and should be considered incitement to insurrection. And I’m so thrilled that people who normally post about pasta recipes or the Buffalo Bills and usually can’t read more than 280 characters have taken the considerable amount of time to not only check the Constitution, now back in vogue, but also to read lengthy Supreme Court cases like Schenck v. the US (1919) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which govern speech incitement. They finally did all this just to back up some memes they took from opinion anchors or politicians who always agree with them. As they're mostly arguing to their ideological bubbles, it's remarkable that they put in so much work for so little reward, that is by possibly changing minds of the opponents who probably blocked them. What an amazing and selfless change that’s finally coming to our country’s social media!
Even though the summer might be blotted out in their minds, all that matters is that now, finally, we’re interested in insurrection and we’ve finally done our homework to understand what it is. I am also very supportive of the dismissal of past riots as “what-aboutisms,” as they seem to be facts brought up merely to spread blame for last week’s events away from the real culprit, instead of those months of riots being evidence of escalation amongst rival mobs and last week as an example of why political violence is the worst way to get a message across.
“So Diary, we’re going to, we’re going to walk down this road for a little, I love this road, and we’re going to the rulers of Facebook and we’re going to try and give… my opponents are hopeless. But we’re going to try and give our friends, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down this road.”
Let’s get started first by applying the two-part test from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to speech before the capital riot of last week so that we can agree in the future that all similar acts are also speech incitement. It’s called constitutional precedent, something that sets an example in case law that almost always has to be followed by future politicians and judges, but they probably knew that already because comedian TV-hosts are that thorough with their news.
(1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and
(2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."
The Brandenburg test is important when considering the crime of incitement. Of course, Facebook most certainly can recall the “Elements of Crime,” being experts in Criminal Justice 101, but I’ll refresh it for myself just for the purposes of self-explanation:
actus reus + mens rea (intent) + concurrence + lack of a defense/alibi= liability/guilt.
So, a criminal act (speech incitement) + guilty mindset (it was known a riot would result and there was intent despite contrary evidence) + concurrence (the speech happened at the same time/prior to the crime) + no defense should be provided, nor exculpatory evidence like tweets should be allowed via Facebook fiat = the speech-maker and his passive supporters are guilty of incitement. Case closed, no further due process required, so people need to stop trying to cover for political terrorism by talking about the facts.
Yet without aiding or comforting the enemies behind the riots, I still want to explore with my Facebook Diary some new definitions of actu rei so that we can prosecute future offenders by the same standard. Clearly, any speech that provokes protesting, walking, bolstering pride and boldness, attacking opponents, and challenging acts one perceives to be unjust in the courts and through the political system are incitement if a crime occurs after the speech. That much our Facebook friends, weak and strong, have made clear.
What I think is most encouraging about our new, more stringent application of speech incitement is that we’ve finally come around to using ex post facto considerations, or after the fact, to punish criminals, something we’ve tried to avoid in our Republic, but after what happened, it seems long overdue regardless of whether it is just or not.
This encouraging change can be explained thus: we know what happened in the capitol building because as almost everyone agrees, it was horrific and shameful. Now that we have knowledge of those terrible crimes, we can look retroactively at words spoken before it because we know the crimes took place. So thankfully, under our new standard of speech incitement we can apply a prohibition of speech rights on any words taken before an alleged crime regardless if there is a direct link between the speech and the crimes. The Facebook community already established that link, so that case is closed. Because we have crimes already figured into our arguments in favor of speech incitement, we can take almost any words spoken before the crimes took place and call them inciting. Finally!
And I don’t want you, Diary, to get the impression that I’m dismissing some people’s focus on the Insurrection Act that gives a President the ability to use his executive powers as commander-in-chief to respond to internal disorders and disputes. Finally, we’re moving towards giving executive authority to legislative branch opponents so they can command the armies in times of rebellion instead of traitorous chief executives. Finally, checks and balances are blurred in favor of what is right.
I fully understand why it was such a problem for the President to use this act back in June when he was demolished in the media for suggesting he’d use it, but it seems so appropriate in the wake of the capital riot to use it on himself, being an inciter, or to give it over to the Speaker of the House, even after he called in the National Guard on the 6th and even though that action was also heavily criticized when used or considered in Oregon, Minnesota, Washington State, and Wisconsin all summer long.
In conclusion, I am for whatever censorship and removal of constitutional rights that can end the calls to walk down roads, to challenge in courts, for wrong-thinking people to disagree with something proven mostly true, to gather large groups of people together who shouldn’t be together because of what they believe, and I certainly applaud the power of private mega tech companies to use their federal communication protections to ban all such speech on their communication platforms just like a baker’s small business unjustly banning the social media of a private person they unjustly refused to bake a wedding cake for because of their wrong free speech considerations. It seems logical and natural that big tech speech is equivalent in power to a religious fanatic baker who owns a small shop. Banning a public official from tweeting and a private baker choosing not to bake seem to be very similar types of speech, I think?
Things are getting blurry, Diary, as I can’t remember if the community considered a cakebaker as a private big tech company with federal communication benefits or what. And I’ll be honest Diary, I can’t remember if corporations should or shouldn’t have collective speech rights either because Citizens United v. FEC (2010) hasn’t been talked about much lately on Facebook after Facebook and Twitter rightly stepped up to ban private customers wanting wedding cakes while the baker banned the social media of the public official who wanted to be a customer and buy a wedding cake. I think that’s what happened according to the equivalence made in some memes.
I just think it’s so neat that people have taken the time to read some pretty important Supreme Court cases that define free speech, collective speech, and the incitement to violence. And finally, checks and balances are called into question based solely on the speech content of the offending branch instead of the constitutional powers provided to it. I’m so electrified by our broad redefining of wrong speech and I’m so glad someone has finally stepped up to defend the federal benefits given to big tech companies who can editorialize the content of their private customers, like a cakebaker not baking a cake, so we don’t have to put up with bad speech anymore.
Finally, we're turning a corner and our Facebook community is right there instigating and goading a walk down that correct road!
move quickly rather than build support (which is not needed, only conscience is), demand that the trial process takes as long as forever to get a certain result, no need for evidence, committees, witnesses, hearings, or rebuttal for discovery phase, create new extremely broad legal standards of incitement vs. free speech in the Article, conduct a retro trial for a moot point regardless of support, the Constitution, or the pastopponents judge actions as partisan politics and not justice, demand a slow process (rational and deliberative, conscience is subjective and isn’t above the law/Constitution), demands the process stops in 6 days, has a need for evidence, committees, witnesses, hearings, and rebuttal for discovery phase, prevention altogether of the trial phase reject imminent danger and hysteria now, protest new speech restrictions and call for rational debate, explore using new incitement standards to label past speech by past opponents as accessories to incitement and demand equal adjudication because current opponents were hysterical and felt in imminent danger back then, impeachment action is unneeded because the voters already spoke in the Nov. election, calls for unity 
No unity
- “Political crime of constitutionally challenging electoral votes” (Hint: expect an answer certainly above 99%)
- “Political crime of not siding with your boss because he demands something impractical and probably unconstitutional, but not illegal” (Hint: not only will this percentage be large, but it must be in order to justify the extremely violent and harsh retribution this political crime created)
- “Social crime of using social media from a big company with a near monopoly of an essential communication service and getting banned from using it" (Hint: any response less than 100% will probably get you banned by a private social media company that gets Section 230 treatment (special government protections against content liability) since your social media company is just acting like a tiny ma and pa bakery when banning speech. Though power is certainly involved with any near-monopoly, using the words “private company” can allow one to factor out any rational counter-arguments so you can maximize social accountability against the banned person.)
- “Social and Political crime of not seeing impeachment as an issue of “conscience,” but of proving a case and carefully debating the evidence related to it.” (Hint: a double whammy, as the political process is involved as well as the social crimes of not acknowledging a choice based on conscience that is already determined to be moral. Solution should be way over 100%)
- “Antifa and other groups rioting in city streets all summer long. Attempting to storm the White House. Burning an historic Church and besieging a Federal Court House.” (Hint: this one is really challenging because many believe Antifa doesn’t even exist nor that the violence happened so it’s likely that your solution is going to hover below 1% or even be 0% altogether.)
- The Trifecta Crime “Political, Social, and Criminal Speech incitement: Giving a speech about the Election, patriotism, unfairness, walking down roads, and weakness versus strength and a violent riot occurs at the same time nearby.” (Hint: There's no way that if you're solving for Accountability on this problem, that your response isn't at least double or triple 100% if you want the harshest punishment possible)
