It's not 50 percent of humanity that posts on Twitter. It's not even 50 percent of the people actually on Twitter who post 95% of the shit you see on Twitter. It's something like 5% of the dumbest most terminally online retards who write the vast majority of it.
I.e., lolcows like the people with threads here.
If a retard falls in a forest, but isn't terminally online enough to tweet about it, does it even make a sound?
What I mean by this is that we don't tend to hear about it as much when
non-online people have a retarded opinion. So there's probably a lot of it that goes unaccounted for. Does that mean that Twitter could be a representative sample of all humanity? Probably not. But I'd argue the main sampling bias there is towards wealth, and how outspoken a person is on any given issue.
You can argue semantics, but a person who keeps their retarded opinions to themselves is still a retard. A Schrodinger's retard, if you will. Anecdotally, this seems to be the case with my friends – I've talked to maybe 4 people in the UK who've heard about Rittenhouse, and 2 of them gave some kind of "Well, he really shouldn't have been there with a gun in the first place." type response – and mind you, this was
only when I brought up the subject – neither one is the type to have said it without prompting, and they certainly wouldn't have talked about it online.
And it isn't even just a left-right thing either, because one of the people I asked leans very much to the right, so I was surprised to hear it from him. And while it's easy to chalk this up to cultural differences (Bri'ish people don't seem to understand why Yanks carry guns), the more obvious conclusion is that people are just dumb about issues they haven't researched themselves. Unless they can devote significant time and energy to understanding the topic, they'll probably just defer to the opinion of a knowledgeable authority, which in this case is the media. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem, since an ignorant person can be educated, except that people tend to overestimate their expertise in subjects they know next to nothing about. Hence: retarded.
This isn't necessarily anything new either, as we humans have always looked to older and wiser members of the Tribe to tell us what to think about difficult-to-understand issues. So I guess all people are ignorant and retarded in one way or another. My point is that social media's main effect has been that it revealed people's ignorance – contrary to the narrative that it attracts the dumbest people, or is actively making them dumber. And this happened at a time when we (unjustly) believed ourselves to be smarter. After all, the Internet was supposed to have ushered in a revolution in how humans think, but all it's done is allowed us to replicate the same human flaws on a larger scale.
Anyway, Kyle says he supports BLM and that he wouldn't have gotten off so easily if he'd been a minority. Whether or not he believes it is another matter – a lot of money hinges on whether he can prove in a defamation lawsuit that he doesn't have a racist bone in his body. But the fact that he even needs to say it says as much as we needed to know about the rest of humanity.
