(Dating)
DATING IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT OF RAPID CHANGE
RE:
https://
youtube.com/watch?v=T5bBPp
pgc4g
…
I dunno. I suppose it’s how ‘valuable’ you are as a man. After my divorce, when dating, I’d say that I have time for dinner and conversation on this day after this time, as long as she realizes
Source date (UTC): 2026-02-20 01:03:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024651037005791713
(Quote via;
@mythPloughman
. Unfortunately, X doesn’t let us edit replies.)
Source date (UTC): 2026-02-19 23:31:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024627936041877535
–“Ethnonationalism is a reaction precisely to most of these people NOT being net contributors. NOT “integrating” in any but the most superficial way. NOT showing the slightest amount of gratitude or respect to Britain, but demanding that the very nature of the nation is changed
Source date (UTC): 2026-02-19 23:30:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024627676045332970
Of course you would go there Will…. lol -hugs
Source date (UTC): 2026-02-19 23:02:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024620594738975119
(Diary, NLI, Humor)
Is getting into another long term relationship a rational choice if my wants are reducible to someone making me coffee in the morning, and then feeding me at least once a day?
(inquiring minds want to know)
.
.
.
(This is bait for cc:
@LukeWeinhagen
,
Source date (UTC): 2026-02-19 22:55:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024618803695669612
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLASSICAL LIBERALISM, LIBERALISM, AND NEO-LIBERALISM.
These labels name overlapping families of ideas, but people use them at different scopes, so the necessary first step is disambiguation: “liberalism” is the umbrella; “classical liberalism” and “neoliberalism” are historically specific variants inside that umbrella.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
Classical liberalism is the early (17th–19th century) form of liberalism that treats the central political problem as protecting individual liberty—primarily via limited, accountable government, rule of law, and strong property/contract rights, with markets doing most allocation work.
Operationally: it prefers negative liberty (freedom from interference) as the default constraint on state action.
LIBERALISM
“Liberalism” is a broader doctrine centered on individual rights and autonomy and equality of opportunity—but what that implies for the state depends on the variant (classical, welfare-state/egalitarian, etc.).
In many 20th-century Anglo-American contexts, “liberalism” often refers to welfare-state / liberal egalitarian forms that treat some state capacity (regulation, social insurance, public provision) as necessary to secure effective opportunity and protect individuals not only from the state but also from certain forms of private power.
Operationally: it allows more positive-liberty reasoning (freedom as capability to act, not merely non-interference).
NEOLIBERALISM
“Neoliberalism” is a late-20th-century ideology/policy model that re-centers market competition and promotes reforms like deregulation, privatization, trade/capital liberalization, and (often) fiscal restraint, while still relying on the state to create/enforce the legal-institutional conditions for markets to operate.
A common operational proxy is the “Washington Consensus” package (trade liberalization, privatization, deregulation, etc.), originally associated with IMF/World Bank/Treasury-era reform advice.
Important constraint: the term is contested and is used both descriptively and as a criticism, so any precise use should specify which policy bundle and which time/place.
THE DIFFERENCE, REDUCED TO TESTABLE DIMENSIONS
Scope of “liberalism”: umbrella family vs a specific 20th-century welfare-state variant. (Ambiguity is the main failure mode.)
Liberty concept: classical liberalism defaults to negative liberty; modern/welfare liberalism more readily treats capability as politically relevant; neoliberalism mostly returns to market/negative-liberty framing but with an explicit focus on competition policy and market construction.
State’s economic role:
classical: state as referee (law, security, contracts) more than manager;
modern liberalism: state as insurer/provider/regulator to secure opportunity and manage market failures;
neoliberalism: state as market-architect/enforcer plus privatizer/deregulator in many sectors.
Source date (UTC): 2026-02-19 16:16:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024518376463499314
(NLI Natural Law and Aristotelian Natural Law)
Aristotle’s natural law is the natural part of political justice: the standards of right that follow necessarily from human nature as rational/political and the polis’s end of cultivating virtue.
It is discovered by analysis of actions, corrected by equity, expressed as proportional reciprocity in dealings, and applied with prudential variability across regimes – universal in kind, contingent in detail.
In modern operational terms: law publicly institutionalizes reciprocal, truth-telling cooperation so citizens can decide disputes without parasitism or discretion beyond what equity demands.
Function (what it does): The Origin of Empirical Science is in Empirical Law
Rule-of-law without discretion where possible, and equitable discretion where necessary, so the polity continually aligns enacted rules with the natural measure (reason/virtue).
Method of discovery: adversarial testing in courts and councils by prudent men, extracting the stable regularities of just dealing from lived practice—operational, not metaphysical.
Output: a legal order that institutionalizes reciprocal dealings, secures the common good, and habituates citizens to virtue; that is, law functions as the public technique of making cooperation decidable and insurable.
Commensurability check (Aristotle <-> “natural law” usage)
Treating “law as institutionalized reciprocity” is consistent with Aristotle’s aim for law to make citizens just and to settle proportional claims; it provides an operational restatement of his end (virtue/common good) in the grammar of exchange and testimony.
This is the equivalent of ‘harmony’ in chinese philosophy, except it demands reciprocity rather than obedience to hierarchy.
Historically, later Abrahamic and scholastic projects tried to integrate Aristotle into universalizing theologies—Averroes, Maimonides, Aquinas—thereby shifting “natural law” toward a cosmopolitan, rights-inflected code Aristotle himself did not write.
This helps explain why many modern summaries project Thomistic content back onto Aristotle.
The problem: Aristotle is demanding personal responsibility, empirical knowledge, the resulting wisdom and accordant agency. What is every other theological and philosophical program demanding?
We completed the aristotelian project.
We just have a lot more science and history to prove he was right, and to understand it at even larger scales.
CD
NLI
Source date (UTC): 2026-02-18 23:36:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024266880668905700
yep
Source date (UTC): 2026-02-18 20:15:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024216186582712532
1) The Yamnaya were a combination of majority eastern europeans and minority west eurasian caucuses. The indo iranians (a linguistic category) are a branch (child of) the indo europeans, that are a secondary admixture as the technology and culture of the yamaya moved eastward by expansion and adoption.
2) “Later steppe populations tied to the Indo-Iranian expansion are typically modeled as a Middle–Late Bronze Age steppe cluster that already includes dilution by substantial extra ancestry from European farmers.”
3) ““Later Indo-Iranians” (after movement south) are steppe ancestry diluted by admixture with local populations. Once you move from “steppe source” to “Indo-Iranian–speaking populations in Iran / Afghanistan / Pakistan / India”, you’re no longer comparing two discrete groups; you’re comparing a cline created by repeated mixing.”
Source date (UTC): 2026-02-18 19:00:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024197243059028405
(NLI)
Thread listing NLI President Brandon Hayes’ SCOTUS Submissions illustrating NLI judgements for cases submitted to the court.
This is evidence of the veracity of our work in producing judicial decidability.
(We have solved computational decidability in law.)
Source date (UTC): 2026-02-18 17:39:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024176879029363117