Carolyn Kraft

We have access to more information now than any other time in the history of mankind. We need to be conscious about our consumption and support of it.

@Mark_McEathron Your comment was so good and this brings up another layer of questions that is crucial to the SPLC indictment situation.

You can see my comment on this post in Substack, but I wanted to ask it here as well. Where is the line between being a private entity and being a "State Actor"? This matters because if you are taking on a role traditionally reserved to the Government, then you have zero Constitutional protections. Legally speaking, at that moment, you become THE government, and are no longer a private entity. This makes you open to all of the transparency that the Government is required to produce. If the SPLC is behaving as a State Actor, is the public then now entitled to ALL of their records and they are now subject to FOIA? open.substack.com/pub/kraftythin…

Let's look at the difference between capitalism and socialism... and the fact that most economies are mixed economies with varying levels of government involvement.

@Mark_McEathron Maybe "world" isn't the proper way to phrase that 😂

@Mark_McEathron What in the world...

I get the weirdest notifications on my phone...👀😂 I dunno gang, am I interested or not interested?

Can quantum computing threaten our liberties? Yes, it can. In this article, I break down that risk and give you some potential solutions. @kraftythinking/note/p-193689975?r=26x4d2&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">substack.com/@kraftythinkin…

As a Christian, I try to lead by example rather than through online opinion and criticism. The dopamine rush we get from criticizing someone is an illusion of moral superiority that we are addicted to, but leads to nothing valuable.

@CommonplaceThe And this is legitimate criticism. The type of criticism that should be discussed. In the same vein, it gives the illusion of being better than Wikipedia or just a basic Google search, but it’s not. So, it pulls people into complacency.

@kraftythinking My main criticism of AI is that information wise it's a glorified search engine program which is still being easily manipulated from within and without to produce certain results. Making it as reliable as Wikipedia.

A lot of AI criticism comes from the expectation that AI will operate perfectly and do everything for you. Ex. Certain AI platforms are too agreeable. Okay, yes, but you can easily train it to not be agreeable. The issue can be fixed with minimal effort and human involvement. Do we really want a tool that operates without any need for customization or human input? I am just wondering what these criticisms say about us and the lens we are viewing AI through.

You can train Claude within a project to disagree with you/correct you. 100% let’s discuss if these AI assistants lean more or less agreeable by default, but also recognize the need for user involvement.

No, and not necessarily because I think they shouldn’t hit someone who hit them, but more because I don’t want to teach my kids to be emotionally reactive. Teaching them to manage their emotions and remove themselves from the situation will make sure they aren’t easily triggered emotional adults.

how long did it take you to recover from the last big difficulty of your life? are you better for it?

The birthright citizenship debate is all about how you interpret the Constitution. New video explaining the originalist argument, Wong Kim Ark, and why the Supreme Court may be about to weigh in on a question that was never actually settled.

@chefsevenn I ate them for lunch almost every day in law school because they didn’t need refrigeration and they were cheap 🤘🏻

WHAT ADULT IS STILL OUT HERE EATING PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY SANDWICHES

@Mark_McEathron Thanks for the shoutout! I love connecting with deep thinkers on either side of the aisle, and my goal with my content is to create free thinkers in a society where we are forced to conform.

Ladies, you have your own "Mark-like" nerd over here in Carolyn! Give her a follow! On all of the platforms. Her content is pure 🔥 She is better at this than I am. Where I come at things with a conservative agenda and purpose, her goal is to create THINKERS. So, it's civics, psychology, philosophy and so on, but all designed to get people thinking. It's ideologically agnostic, so you can share it with friends across the aisle and they won't feel attacked.

@kraftythinking There shall be no thinking allowed in this house! Strictly forbidden!

Rebellious, hot-headed, and stubborn kids turn into the kinds of adults who think critically, resist manipulation, and are independent…if you raise them right. Don’t punish your kid for questioning you or pushing back, figure out how to cultivate it appropriately.

I think it's a possibility, and likely a reality. I think there are many reasons someone may be attracted to a public office position. I'd even go so far as to guess that the majority of people in public office positions do not have background knowledge in political theory. My hope is that my content educates the general audience, and we start holding our elected officials more accountable!

What if there were women interested in politics and holding public office (like our local school board) but still lacked a background knowledge in civics and political theory? Do you think that this is a possibility? Perhaps the fact that more women register Democrat is due to a lack of this critical background knowledge. Not that there’s not exceptions on either side, but as a statistical majority. In fact, if you could attract more women to your audience you would become part of the solution if it were established that the problem I suggest exists.

Most of my audience is male, and I discuss civics, political theory, ethics, & philosophy. I’d like to fix this gap.

@coltswalker Personally, I think it's a lack of knowledge because it's a lack of interest. I think my audience being majority male supports this, since the algorithm is set to hit demographics already interested in my content.

@kraftythinking Can you opine on why this asymmetry exists between the genders in regards to "knowledge" rather than "interest" in this particular area?

@Mark_McEathron Thank you for the support! And yes, we need to start holding influencers accountable!

Great article by Carolyn, and a warning we should all pay close attention to. One component I would like to add to this is the role of social media influencers in the spread of "slopaganda" (perfect term!). Beware of the paid influencer. Many do not own their own content. It's pure regurgitation. open.substack.com/pub/kraftythin…

@Mark_McEathron This is a great breakdown! Thank you!

A little history on the 14th Amendment and the "birthright citizenship" clause. I'm reminded that a lot of people do not know the process involved in bringing an amendment from concept to to ratification and law, or why that process matters. Jacob Howard (Senate) and John Bingham (House) were the two guys that drafted and presented the proposed amendment to Congress. Once submitted, there is debate. Members of Congress express concerns, propose changes, and so on. These debates are recorded for posterity to look back upon to better understand what the legislation is intended to do. Then, once Congress passes it and presents it to the States, there is the Ratification Process in which each State can debate and present their concerns. This leaves us with a tremendous record of why specific words and phrases were chosen and what the intent was. It informs the voters on exactly what the law means, straight from the framers of it, so that there is no confusion. This is why originalism is preferred to textualism. The law can only mean what it meant when it was adopted. Altering the meaning and intent of the law is altering the law itself and subverts the legislative process. Courts do not have that power. Sadly, that hasn't stopped courts from usurping that power. In the Ratification process, the very questions being argued before SCOTUS today, were addressed unequivocally. When asked if the amendment applies to foreigners, the framers themselves had this to say, explicitly: Howard said: “This amendment… declares that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…” Then he immediately defines the limitation: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…” That is the understanding of the law as it was ratified. That is what We The People voted to enact. Furthermore, they went even deeper on what "subject to the jurisdiction" explicitly meant: Howard described jurisdiction as: “Full and complete jurisdiction… not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Allegiance. That was the crux of the debate and understanding. For those born here from citizens of another Nation: “They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in a certain sense, but not in the full and complete sense.” - Howard Full and complete. That's what makes someone subject to the jurisdiction. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” - Senator Lyman Trumbull at the ratification debates They explicitly rejected absolute jus soli (citizenship by soil alone). In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark., the court applied the English Common law standard of jus soli, flagarently against Congress's explicit rejection of it during ratification. The court rejected originalism in favor of textualism. As a result, this Nation ended up with a very different legal structure than the Constitution created. The bottom line is that the 14th Amendment did not establish birthright citizenship. It ensured that due process and the rights and privileges in the States are preserved. If you listen to the oral arguments before the court today, I expect that you'll see this argument put forth. Allegiance, not presence, determines citizenship.