Smart. π
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:26:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876364720674066446
Reply addressees: @afo2030
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876362548536291804
Smart. π
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:26:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876364720674066446
Reply addressees: @afo2030
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876362548536291804
I’m too smart to fall for that one Shane… lolz π
(Correct answer: if it imposes no cost on the commons then no.)
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:26:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876364626117759259
Reply addressees: @Claffertyshane @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876363128042324300
Q: Curt: –“Are you favorable to repealing the 19th?”– @RichardArion1
Great question.
There are my opinions, my insights given the evidence, and the institute position. Those things are not always the same. I have a classical liberal and libertarian optimism of the anglos and founders that the rest of the institute does not share.
The institute’s position is that we explain the problem of the innate irresponsibility of women for capital and their innate demand for destructive hyperconsumption of it through their irresponsibility. Not that the problem is exclusively female, but that the sexes heavily bias to their natural instincts in the distribution of the voting pool.
So given those innate differences that are inviolable, we provide a spectrum of solutions from revocation, to heavy investment in education and training, to adding requirements, to adding separate house for women, and we leave the solution up to the population.
The simple version is revocation.
The hard version is a combination of heavy investment, adding requirements for demonstrated responsibility for the commons, and separate houses.
So, If you ask my opinion, I’m simply not sure, and I’m not sure because I am part of the Jones Generation between the boomers and gen x, and I am not certain I can separate my intuitions, lived experience, and understanding from influencing my choice.
So if I must answer, my personal opinion is that we would all be better off if we let women be women instead of trying to make them men. And we take a more aggressive role in constitutionally addressing the sex differences in responsibilities and inalienations to codify our observations and expectations.
Women are no demonstrably happier than in the past – much less so – and the polity is more fragile because of them. They are just very easy to sedate and influence with increases in consumption and attention and escape from responsibility for defense of the capital of the commons upon which their luxury of hyperconsumption depends.
That’s what the science says. So that’s where I stand and the institute stands.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @RichardArion1
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:25:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876364369212387329
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876360867497034200
I am not a fan of the psyop or fed accusation, but if you mean ‘useful idiot’ whether out of ordinary malicentives or intentional manipulation then I agree. The right and left each have their share of useful idiots. The only idiots that aren’t that useful are the undecideds,β¦
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:11:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876361017648910583
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876359677229052327
That’s totally unfair. lol
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:08:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876360202754355641
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876360004791341173
True, but you know, once it’s hot or cold enough it doesn’t matter how hot or cold it is. π Once you’re enough of a problem for the rest of the right, you’re just a problem. π
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:03:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876358895767306619
Reply addressees: @RichardArion1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876358103362593111
MARTIN BEING MARTIN AGAIN… π
–“The Dissident Right may have slight selection against having money both because research takes time that people with careers do not have and because most paying careers select against people who are disagreeable and speak out the truthβ¦ https://twitter.com/AutistocratMS/status/1876353524701020600
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 19:53:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876356428526731503
Well, you know, very well, I slowly, reluctantly come around to at least understanding your position. Even when I think it’s at cross purposes. The problem is usually understanding why you’re working at cross purposes. It’s not because I don’t think you’re in some way correct.β¦
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 19:48:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876355056335004127
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876353524701020600
—Curt: Accusation:”1) You seem pretty confused. 2) Government stopping leftists from supporting whatever would violate the 1st amendment. 3) that has nothing to do with using the government & taxpayer money to interfere in a foreign country’s domestic politics. Tax and spend imperialism.”— @findfredhampton
Well, of course, I agree with the second statement.
Although, regarding the first, I am very likely one of the least confused people living at the moment – something I can say with reluctant confidence, and a great deal of sorrow and frustration.
But your third statement is false. Musk doesn’t use government and taxpayer money. He doesn’t have to. He’s the richest private citizen in the world (despite lagging far behind Putin.) He only uses his own money, and even then it’s not money he uses so much as his intelligence, credibility, and his platform.
Just like every other person in the media, every other public intellectual, every other private citizen some percentage of the population looks to for understanding and advocacy.
Given it’s part of my job, I write criticisms of the UK government and population and certainly public intellectuals with some regularity. Just like many other countries. And, despite reaching millions in the past, only reach tens of thousands today. And much of my work is dense if not incomprehensible to many.
Instead, Musk is very good at saying the obvious – what many others are thinking – with clarity and parsimony. In doing so he gives legitimacy to those many people who think the same thing but are uncertain of the commonality of their thoughts.
Cheers,
CD
Reply addressees: @findfredhampton @eyeslasho
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 19:46:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876354644584390656
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876348473915871431
Martin being Martin with simple clear and painful truth… lol https://twitter.com/AutistocratMS/status/1876344454011097454
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 19:36:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876352058569474482
https://twitter.com/AutistocratMS/status/1876344454011097454