Crime-Stop Via Triple-Think

Crime-Stop Via Triple-Think

Dig these trilemmas:

* Dr. Ford is credible.

* If Dr. Ford is credible, then Judge Kavanaugh is unqualified.

* Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.

* Jamal Khashoggi was butchered at the orders of Mohammed bin Salman.

* If Jamal Khashoggi was butchered at the orders of Mohammed bin Salman, then the Saudis are not a reliable ally.

* The Saudis are a reliable ally.

* The MAGAbomber is a Trumpist.

* If the MAGAbomber is a Trumpist, then the MAGAbombs are not a false flag.

* The MAGAbombs are a false flag.

Choose two! Or in other words: any two imply the negation of the third. Which to deny?

The curious thing is, the R party tries to have all three parts of each trilemma! They reflexively defend part 3 as a predetermined conclusion; they spasmotically try to deny another part of the trilemma (usually part 1, sometimes 2); but normalcy prevails. This means defying the law of modus ponens: From A, and A implies B, derive B. Modus ponens is also known as “consequence”: so the R party literally denies consequence. Therefore I call the R’s the Party of Personal Irresponsibility.

Shall we call this innovation “triple-think”?

I propose that triple-think is the mechanics of crime-stop. Trilemmas create the protective stupidity that prevents logical deductions against Big Brother.

But every trilemma is three syllogisms in disguise; for from any two statements in a trilemma, one may deduce the negation of the third. So crime-stop is a bulwark for Big Brother; but it is also an open invitation to thought crime.