David's Law or How To Politicise The Dead

The cold claws of insanity are gripping this nation tighter and tighter by the minute.

Below we see a stark lesson in politicising and then weaponising the deceased for nefarious ends. David Arness wasn't murdered by forthright or rude language on Twitter, his murder was premeditated by a terrorist. It had nothing to do with online abuse, not that truth ever matters to the gremlins that occupy the offices of The Guardian. But it is a handy pretext for the bourgeois class. They're more than happy to use the tragedy of death to further their draconian agenda.

And this draconian agenda is the agenda of an upper class that has, to this point, never experienced retaliation and pushback from the public; it has never before been held to account publicly. It's clear from their reaction and the conflation of pushback, argument and debate with abuse, and even with terrorism, that they're not happy with this new situation.

This "I will call the manager" attitude of the upper class, which I shall now dub the Karen class, is authoritarianism by any other name. They hate the fact that regular working class people can easily question and call out their bullshit on social media - they're just not used to it. They're used to the journo-hacks stroking their egos and uncritically regurgitating every hot lie that crawls forth unabated from their rabidly foaming maws.

I guess when you've been in a position of privilege for so long, disputes and arguments can feel like abuse. It can feel personal even when it isn't. Especially when it comes from those you deem lower than yourself. It casts a certain light upon certain class privileges and positions that otherwise wouldn't be highlighted for all to see.

They liked it best when workers had no choice but to accept what they were told through the papers, TV and radio. There were no other sources unless you wanted to read dirty great tomes of theory and history or associate with fringe left-wing groups who could just as easily be cast as lunatics by the media machine. After all, it's the social aspect of social media that's the problem for them, not the media part. It has allowed us collective debate that otherwise would not happen. Avoiding scrutiny from the grassroots is a goal for the ruling class.

The drive against online anonymity is for one reason only: to put people back in their place and to recreate the proper hierarchy - bourgeois ghouls at the top and workers at the bottom. The objective is to create a chilling effect by making it easy to identify you, your family and your boss. You'll be punished for holding political figures to account on Twitter or daring to write a probing email to your MP. It'll be nothing but legalised doxing - something that I suspect has been a goal of this class for some time. 

This isn't to say that online abuse isn't a problem. A few years ago Diane Abbott was revealed to be the most abused MP online. It's a testament to her strength of character that she has not shied away from the online world and that she has continued to express her unwavering and deepest held beliefs. Many people experience the worst effects of it though - depression, low self-esteem and generally poor mental health, for example. But online abuse rarely if at all results in real-world altercations where people meet to beat the living snot out of each other, or worse.

The problem with abuse, in no small part, lays with the right-wing owned media, the commentariat, culture-war obsessed politicians, and the culture they have fomented to keep us divided. I prefer to name this phenomenon after a principle in computer science - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

The media constantly produces unyieldingly terrible, untruthful and poor quality articles with sewer level standards of journalism. When this is laundered through the grey blancmange of a bio-computer that is the human mind, what sort of output would you expect?

When The Sun says "Jezza is a terrorist sympathiser!", do you expect the average, politically apathetic reader of this sort of tripe to look further than the headline and produce an opinion of better or worse quality? A reasoned critique, perchance?

When Robert Peston says "A government source says Boris and Carrie were in a support bubble with Nimco Ali so no rules were broken", would you expect the average reader of this unusually transparent bilge-water to understand that this is actually circular reporting and not an honest justification?

When the Daily Mail says "Now we're importing brickies on £1000 a week!", this is a genuine headline by the way, would you expect low paid, disenfranchised workers to greet them warmly with open arms or become openly hostile toward them?

You produce terrible, low quality and untruthful journalism and you'll get terrible, low quality abusive responses as a consequence. It serves as means to reproduce the highly polarised and toxic political culture we have in the UK and it's cheap and easy to produce.

Garbage in, garbage out.

As the shambling, undead corpse of capitalism falters, more and more authoritarian methods are needed to keep it moving. In ancient slave societies, they would've whipped you to force you to work harder. Today, they just need to take away your civil liberties to socially immiserate you - a metaphorical whipping.

The Karen class is up in arms at the prospect of workers having a unified voice and the concierges of said class, The Guardian, The Sun and other journo-hacks who have spent years cultivating our sick and highly polarised political culture, are more than happy to call the manager for them.