(For the record, I was going to do this article anyway. I did find the theory somewhat interesting, but felt one question does need to be asked and answered to the regard of the situation posited.)
In a world where someone would've put this theory up some time ago, I might've posted this closer to Part Three of this series, which will be posted on the 25th anniversary of my New York arrest (and should've been the anniversary of me being made into Swiss cheese by the NYPD, but I'll explain more of that in May...), Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker posted this discussion on the concept that he felt (It was for the original US government support of the COVID-19 vaccines, but it could also apply to Trump's lack of action in joining the movement he fostered on January 6th, 2021.) that Donald Trump should commit seppuku, and do so publicly.
For this, Twitter slapped Denninger with a 12-hour Twitter-jail penalty. He responded with this commentary on his The Market Ticker blog.
The original concept is that he believes that certain people will only change their behavior upon being removed from society through shaming, and that enough shame will bring self-introspection and force the change in behavior. This is applied to the "body positivity" movement, calling people "crazy", etc. -- believing that, since no real change in suicide rates results from shaming people, that forcing people out of society (or at least of certain portions of it) through being shamed out is the only way to force people to not be so fat/crazy/pro-vaxx/whatever you wish to do it with).
It is when he references his 12-hour Twitter disqualification that he makes a very fundamental distinction: He is against suicide as a function of despair (which is the rule Twitter got him on: encouraging self-harm). What he is NOT against is what he considers a very different animal: That a person -- having committed an act (or a series of acts) so egregious that no Earthly penalty will suffice, no Earthly apology is possible, and/or has brought sufficient shame to his or her family name, etc. that the action hurts them -- SHOULD have the right to honorably forfeit the remainder of his or her life and present themselves for God's judgement on the matter.
He believes the rot in our society only exists because we do not make this distinction.
(For the record, as I will explain in May in Part Three of this series, I do believe I more than qualify, and for far more than the Debbie Gibson situation. But it is Debbie being involved which will prevent that -- the Federal government is more than aware of a previous intention of suicide/honorable presentation for God's judgement, and believes I am insane enough to still take Gibson with me, as of... 2004? 2005?? I know, because I saw notes of my therapist being so notified while we were meeting.)
But it is that I do believe I qualify which raises one question in my mind regarding this:
I have long said online that I have such a sufficient reputation (and this was years before the arrest) that there really wasn't much you could do to shame me out or whatever.
What do, or CAN, you do to a person for whom it is believed by "civilized society" that such an act has occurred, but the person refuses sufficient shame to take their own life in that manner?
At what point, Mr. Denninger, does that necessity of shame require "civilized society" to kill a person, presenting them to God immediately for His judgement, if the individual either refuses or the distinction (between despair suicide and honorable presentation) is not made?
This does NOT necessarily mean God will judge harshly -- it only means the same as what Karl believes is honorable for a sufficiently-disgraced person to do, and must do.
No comments:
Post a Comment