Must say this made me laugh (in a good way)…
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil Liberties
Commentary
Economics |
Careful what you click on…October 28th, 2025 |
 9 comments to Careful what you click on…Leave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I wasn’t familiar with Candice Owen but I did wonder what happened to Tucker Carlson. He seemed a sensible chap for many years but is obviously mad as a box of frogs.
Perhaps my failure to engage with mainstream pundits, award ceremonies, approved broadcasters, celebrities and ‘influencers’ is not received as a silent message of contempt? So… it’s all my fault for slack gatekeeping?
Everything he said can also be applied to voting.
What you reward with your votes is what you create more of in the world.
We get the media that we choose to watch, and we get the government for which we choose to vote.
And yet (or, and so), here we are.
@Old Jack Tar
obviously mad as a box of frogs.
Are they mad as in crazy or mad as in angry? And why is a box of frogs mad? I mean are they mad because they are in the box, or are frogs just intrinsically mad and the madness is compounded by there being a bunch all in one single place?
When it comes to voting, unless there is a “None of the Above” option, then you are playing cards with no chance of changing your hand and that hand contains the jokers too.
It is a British English phrase, so mad means crazy, tonto, heading for the loony bin.
However it is not a particularly accurate phrase. Having seen boxes of live frogs in Chinese wet markets, I’d describe them as ‘gloomily resigned” or perhaps just ‘dispirited’.
Tucker Carlson claimed that space aliens were visiting this world – when challenged he produced no evidence, yet an audience of people stayed with him.
Candice Owens claimed that the American Moon landings were faked – again an audience stuck with her.
Konstantin Kisin has a point – we can not just blame people such as Tucker Carlson or Candice Owens for what they do – the audience empowers them.
There are two possibilities in the case of Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens – either they know what they are pushing is false, in which case they are engaged in fraud – and the audience is aiding this fraud. Or they really do believe the things they say – in which case the audience is worse, it is getting a “kick” out of watching mentally ill people rave – which is no better than the people who used to go to the Bedlam mental hospital to laugh at the patients.
I hope hope that people such as Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens are just fraudsters – in which case they, and their audience, deserve contempt but not much attention.
But there is the darker possibility that both or at least one (very possibly Candice Owens) are mentally ill – and instead of getting the help they desperately need, they are getting people encouraging their delusions and leading them deeper and deeper into insanity.
Recently Candace Owens said that Charlie Kirk had come to her in a dream and told her that supposed friends (the lady heavily implied it was the Jews) had betrayed and murdered him.
This claim caused much mirth – but what if Candace Owens really-does-believe this? What if we are dealing with a desperately ill women who, instead of getting the help she needs, has got people pushing her further and further into madness – encouraging her to believe her delusions, whilst (behind her back) laughing at her?
Sorry, but anything with that “one word at a time” open captioning style right in the middle in an obnoxiously large font is an immediate no from me, whatever the material.
I did always think institutions like PragerU/Daily Wire were playing a dangerous and opportunistic game promoting Candace Owens. I’m not surprised such a volatile person turned on them, although I don’t feel remotely sorry for the likes of DW. They probably made a lot of money from her.