terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - "Logic and Collusion of Culture and Cudgeler in Justice Struggles" The criteria for different degrees of civil code violation under the Blightgeist are (perhaps deliberately) unclear from the outset, particularly in how they may depend on outside testimony, systemically decided (and by whom specifically?) protocol, logic, systemic habit, etc. Often times initial violations serve as proxy pretexts to brutality simply by their adjacentness to an issue that (according to systemic protocol) warrants a certain treatment and thereby is adjacent to another issue warranting a different form of treatment, especially given the natural and hard-to-avoid (or know-systemic-acceptability-of) reactions of the state-oppressed party or another (usually official or cudgeling) party that may intensify an investigated conflict and thus (only formally and systemically, not universally) warrant the next degree of action that accelerates it towards brutality -- especially given the accelerating nature of intensity. This is even more true where the dilemma is engaged with by someone who is not only in a position of physical, systemic, or resource-wise power (as the Blightgeist’s cudgeling class generally are), but who willingly adopted the formal position that entails such. Supposed incidental sufferance of the punished subject, even if true, does not absolve the measure taken in the situation, and to try to make it so (or at least pretend so) would only lead to further precedent where brutalizing of beings can be absolved and their resulting sufferance can be attributed to some outside cause or even other (sometimes commonly associated) societal bogey under the Blightgeist. It also does not account for the myriad ways in which supposed incidental sufferance or death can be made worse or more likely by aforementioned treatment. Naturally, this is a scheme. Despite this, grievances in the name of justice regarding the outcomes (if not processes) of such situations are often shown, seen, and pointed out in terms of affect or distress, which can be (sometimes after being instigated) then shown by the leverager as a sign of weaker standing in assessing the situation. Specifically, affect can help one gauge the enormity of a situation (even if not in an honest or direct way but simply in terms of the range of grievance or personal investment involved in the total set of parties in a situation) but can be weaponized against those arguing for a situation’s legitimacy as being irrational and thus not holding of any truth or relevance to the situation; and this can be used to leverage one’s own position regarding it. Often this affect is in fact accompanying or in spite of a valid form of engagement or reasoning about the situation, but can be used against it, especially where the leverager in question is doing so in the auspices of official procedure or with the deceitful advantage coming from a place of official power concerning the situation and the field in which such situations are dealt with, being a veteran of their own field (whose very roots and premises are questionable). All this is to never mind the ways in which affect is inherent to the actions if not very enlisting of a Blightgeistian agent or cudgeler, and just not recognized by the Blightgeist in that specific aspect — it is only once attention is called to the situation (often via affect) that affect is even registered at all, especially given the by-then systemic commonality of things like cudgeled protocol; and much of the audience is inclined to follow along with this. Furthermore, the mere recourse to the total of unknown or unseen facts of a situation that is documented and whose actions (particularly those egregious) under investigation are clear and certain, is but a distraction that does not in its actual content contradict the actions under investigation but that instead puts forward only the truth that truth itself either cannot be sufficiently comprehensive or is too complex for a general audience outside of the leverager’s core circle of likeminded specialists or “experts” to have hope of comprehending, and therefore absolves the action under investigation even if just through procedural fatigue of outside parties. Positions (particularly those of power and especially of official systemic power concerning law) given a motive for profit, advancement, and ego-boost via prestige in which a practitioner is bound to twist truth merely for the position in which they’ve been cast only further reveals the hollowness fo the supposedly free system it is meant to serve (and its subjects) and opens the gates to abuses. This applies as well to the identification of inaccurate technical details given about the situation that do not annul the investigated action of that situation, and also merely distract from rather than truly annul the point of focus. Moreover, details about the aforementioned incidental issues or sufferances of the wronged subject in a situation, especially those of a social bogey, become (however subconsciously) general cultural tropes concerning who among beings-as-such is even deserving of existence and thriving, and why; and their technical involvement in (or even cause of) the wronging or sufferance of a subject in an investigated situation helps sublate this stigmatization of the bogey as a widely acceptable justification for the sufferance or death of the subject without relying on the already-disingenuous matrix of state law in the system. Even if the death or sufferance of the subject in question is incidental to the (especially systemic) mistreatment of them, the association of the two -- especially in high-profile situations, high-stakes ones that help determine the trajectory of a territorialist system -- can set a dangerous precedent buttressed by the spell of Blightgeistian cultural conditioning about associated bogeys. This is ignoring the ways in which the conditions and background of such incidental cause of sufferance or death reveal a lack of support systemically for beings, which is also maliciously attributed by Erosion to a supposed inherent lack in the being as part of Erosion's scheme against being-as-such. This is also not counting the supposed proof of this incidental cause of sufferance or death of the subject lying merely in outward signifiers (particularly as similar to previous situations related to the supposed incidental cause), and the lack of deeper verification of the incidental source of sufferance or death as cause...is itself cause for suspicion about the assertion. That such assertion merely contains an outward signifier and the technical engagement with according science, or science in general, does not itself mean that scientific procedure was invoked. However, Blightgeistian conditioning allows at large for the mere engagement of science concerning a subject and the nominal drawing of connection between the two as sufficient grounds for an assertion. To this end, the invocation of experts concerning a subject can be selectively drawn and misapplied without swallowing or soliciting said experts’ (hopefully) qualified analysis on the situation, as they can be invoked merely for confirmation of general statements and laws concerning the subject rather than reasoning regarding the actual substantive connection (if indeed there is any at all) between the subject of expertise and the situation under investigation. But the supposed incidental cause of a sufferance or death, or even incidental details in general, should not and cannot be omitted either in the investigation of a situation, not least of all because they can help paint a picture of the being’s matrix of sufferance and systemic persecution. The resistance to systemic or system-sanctioned force is often out of immediate necessity for what little room of leverage the sufferer can grant themselves for mere survival, though this ironically provides pretext for further persecution of said individual and a subset of beings they belong to AS SUCH, in a way that is granted legitimacy under Blightgeistian conditioning by the presumed duty and standing of the cudgeler involved; not to mention that the mere aspect of resistance is shown to justify the ensuing sufferance or death of the being either out of suspicion of deeper wrongdoing or dangerous disposition, or merely for sympathy to the supposed unknowability and unpredictability of the situation for the willingly enlisted and engaging cudgeler. The drawing of connection between such dilemma and a preexisting societal “bogey” pattern of behavior or sufferance in the being of focus further legitimizes extant judgments on both. The state calculus of dangerous resistance in the first place allows pre-emptive action under the expectation of further resistance or danger later, to where the mere present ceasiing of resistance is not adequate; and this is really due to the systemic use of the cudgeler’s continued existence and, thus, duty. This in itself reveals the immediate and conceptual need for riddance of the notions and structures on which such cudgeling classes are built.