Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • (dispel my ignorance? “opening the floodgates”?)

    (dispel my ignorance? “opening the floodgates”?)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-11 16:45:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028321493095247874

    Reply addressees: @xmjEE

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028321107995181057


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028321107995181057

  • “Chaos generates opportunity”. 😉

    “Chaos generates opportunity”. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-11 16:34:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028318654184738816

    Reply addressees: @xmjEE

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028317476839452673


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028317476839452673

  • (FYI: Asked by Kashif to engage with this page.) REGARDING PHILOSOPHY I dunno. A

    (FYI: Asked by Kashif to engage with this page.)

    REGARDING PHILOSOPHY

    I dunno.

    As far as I know, one can practice a limited spectrum of methods of producing paradigms (networks) of decidability: occult < theology < literature < philosophy <- common law -> science > mathematics > logic.

    We do possess three faculties: intuition-emotion, reason, and physical sensation. And we depend more or less on each of those faculties in each, with law depending upon all, and others depending upon less so.

    It’s not unreasonable that some would seek to rely more on intuition, more on reason, or more on physical sense and perception, if for no other reason than intuition is cheap, reason is more difficult and therefore costly, and physical operations are the most difficult and costly of all. But conversely, intuition > reason, and > physical demonstration are decreasingly prone to error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.

    I consider this a scientific, logical, and legal statement, because it has no room for, or tolerance for untestifiable fictionalisms (irreciprocity, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, fiction, and the combination of those in mythology, theology and the occult.) And conversely it demands testifiability, reciprocity, existential possibility, rationality (cost), consistency, correspondence, and coherence.

    Common (traditional) Law, reasoning, and observation within that law existed before all other disciplines and exists even where there are no other disciplines, and as far as I know of all other disciplines are derivatives of the rules of resolution of conflict that we call law.

    The origin of western philosophy was largely in the circumvention of traditional law, in an effort to reform it to match the rates of innovation and changes in the scale of cooperation – in particular the learnings of mathematics.

    It’s certainly true that there has been a conflict between law, and martial authority, and law and religious authority, and even in the modern world, between law and commercial authority, or law and popular authority.

    And this is because coercion by various fictionalisms (pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, supernatural) seek to deceive or coerce others such that they can violate the law that requires the rational, reciprocal, logical, scientific, and existential that can be testified to.

    So because philosophy is not as strong (decidable) as law, science, mathematics, because it’s scope is smaller, but does accommodate preference and good rather than decidability(truth).

    So I consider philosophy a discipline for violating law (reciprocity, volition, rational choice, costs), science, logic, and mathematics, – all of which that evolved because it was cheaper than experimentation (science).

    Or stated more simply, between Saul, Augustine, Plato, And Aristotle, Aristotle’s science won:

    Saul(Supernatural) < Augustine(Theological) < Plato(Ideal) < Aristotle(Real Empirical)

    And science won because it is more demanding of decidability – but was delayed because it’s more expensive. Philosophy was a cheap substitute prior to the development of science. And all disciplines are now subsets of science not philosophy.

    I work in the science of natural law (testimony and decidability). I only use the term ‘philosopher’ to directly compete with the discipline – which I consider, like theology, dead, and or fraud.

    (Hopefully that will stimulate a conversation). 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-11 09:46:00 UTC

  • —-”Is Marxism the opiate of the envious?”—- 1. Marxism (Boasianism, Marxism, Fre

    —-”Is Marxism the opiate of the envious?”—-

    1. Marxism (Boasianism, Marxism, Freudianism, Frankfurt School) consists of a **pseudoscientific** revolt against aristocratic european civilization’s sovereignty, reason, markets, and meritocracy, and is merely a restatement of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic **supernatural** REVOLT against the great aristocratic civilizations of the ancient world – this time with a false promise of prosperity in search for power, just as in the ancient world, a false promise of life after death or paradise in search for power.

    2. Postmodernism is a **pseudo-rational** restatement of the Marxist (Boasian, Marxist, Freudian, Frankfurt School) REVOLT against reason markets, meritocracy and eugenics that result from that merit. This time abandoning both the supernatural, the pseudoscientific, and merely engaging in gossip, rallying, shaming, ridicule, disapproval, in the pursuit of power to resist meritocracy (eugenics)

    3. So whether Semitic Abrahamic **Supernatural** Religion, Marxist **pseudoscientific** reformation of abrahamic religion, or Postmodern pseudo-rational justification is used, the same argumentative **sophisms **of **justificationary Pilpul**, and **critical Critique **are used to circumvent reason, appeal to intuition.

    4. Why? We are, because of our genetics, and the intuitions that result from our genetics, of differing interpersonal, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. This market value is generally categorized as ‘class’. We do, because of genetics, physically possess physical brain and physical chemical intuitions that reflect our class and our genders. And just as the female reproductive strategy (herds) evolved to persist her genes regardless of the merit of her offspring, and men evolved to persist their genes (packs) by the merit of himself and his male kin, classes evolved to express either the feminine dysgenic or male eugenic group strategies. Our differences in moral intuitions are the result of these axis: gender cognitive bias, and class cognitive bias, and the degree of group neoteny that evolved in our relative geographies.

    5. So to some degree just as religion is an opiate of the lower classes, philosophy provides an opiate of the middle classes, and pseudoscience the upper middle classes – the upper classes need no opiate other than the rewards of their market position (desirability). Why? we want hope or promise of raising our interpersonal, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. Because after all – that is what drives reproduction, and what drives all our behavior.

    6. The underclasses are not oppressed. They are just six times as bad for the polity as every good person is good for it. Markets cannot lie. They contain lottery effects. And the lottery effect provides us with the incentives (hope) just as religion, philosophy, and pseudoscience provide us with hope. Hope that we will obtain the benefits of being of higher market value than we are. In other words: status rules us.

    7. The duration of a Democracy is determined by the time it takes to redistribute, and spend down a windfall, from war, conquest, technical innovation, or accident of nature. We are rapidly running out of the industrial (petroleum) windfall, just as Athens ran out of it’s silver mine.

    8. A mixed economy ruled by an authoritarian, an oligarchy, or a ‘party’ – differing only in scale – is the only survivable, with fascism necessary in war, and the luxury of social democracy possible under windfalls.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-10 10:57:00 UTC

  • Aug 9, 2018, 7:03 PM

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-ukrainetoday/ukrainian_internet_is_worlds_cheapest/https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-ukrainetoday/ukrainian_internet_is_worlds_cheapest/Updated Aug 9, 2018, 7:03 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-09 19:03:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-ukrainetoday/ukrainian_internet_is_worlds_cheapest/https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-ukrainetoday/ukrainian_internet_is_worlds_cheapest/https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-ukrainetoday/ukrainian_internet_is_worlds_cheapest/


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-09 19:03:00 UTC

  • NOT SURE IF THIS WAS BAIT OR NOT. I JUST DO MY JOB. —– Good afternoon Mr Dool

    NOT SURE IF THIS WAS BAIT OR NOT. I JUST DO MY JOB.

    —–

    Good afternoon Mr Doolittle,

    I understand you’re in a compromising position to answer questions of this nature so if you cant, that’s understandable. I am New Zealand student doing a study on the reasoning behind holocaust denial and was wondering if you had any specific sources or historians you thought were worth looking into. My endevours have been less fruitful than I’d hope to find sufficient sourcing, and anything you could provide me with would be greatly appreciated.

    With respect,

    [Name Withheld by Request]

    —–

    Hi. Well, the Nazi’s hate me for my positions. So I have no idea why anyone thinks I”m on the side of the lunatic fringe rather than a libertarian that specializes in truth telling and debunking falsehoods.

    1) The hard right has adopted the left’s rhetorical tactics – which isn not what anyone expected. But that’s what the ‘alt right’ reflects: adoption of hyperbole, gossip, rallying, chanting, ridicule, shaming, and propagandizing. Postmodernism taught us that truth, reason, and science are impediments to power so truth does not matter. Since the left uses this tactic, for some reason the right eventually adopted it. My opinion is that the same training that went into the millennial generation on the left, went into the right, with opposite consequences: adoption of the technique for opposite ends. And the internet gave opportunity for people less politically interested to participate in political action, the same way that cheap 19th and 20th century printing gave opportunity for people more politically interested to engage in political action.

    2) I don’t follow the ‘denier’ movement and I”m not terribly fond of the nazi era – my emphasis is in the pre and postwar rise of psuduoscience – but I do know that the holocaust story is ‘overplayed’ considerably, and that the evidence is that the nazis were imitating the Russian relocation strategy, and when the war was forced by Russia, the strategy could no longer be funded, and the natural consequences of that condition resulted in what it did. Just as the minions and millions of Russian dead were the consequence of trying to implement agrarian communism.

    3) So this is to say that the same overstatement by the postwar propagandists, and the overstatement by the alt right are just competing hyperbolic narratives – which is the natural result of adopting marxist, fascist, postmodern strategy: recursive mutual degradation of the argument.

    I mean, search Amazon for books on holocaust denial and you’ll find a lot of them. (I just did). I haven’t read any of them. And I don’t consider the subject worth my time. History always solves these questions. And when the invested generations are gone, the truth will come out one way or another. My suspicion given current discourse among historians is that, as always, historians will reduce the questions to military, political, demographic, and economic incentives. And at some point we will know the truth – or as close as history can help us discover it.

    I actually don’t care. Fascism whether left or right Won (mixed economy strong state).

    -Curt

    ——

    Thank you so much for your time and such a comprehensive answer. Very much appreciated.

    [Name Withheld]


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-08 09:42:00 UTC

  • Will someone tell me how this is hate speech? It’s about the debate between the

    Will someone tell me how this is hate speech? It’s about the debate between the

    Will someone tell me how this is hate speech? It’s about the debate between the better angels of our nature, and the many institutions from militaries, to police forces to laws to suppress violence. I mean, if this isn’t targeting I don’t know what it is.
    #facebook #censorship https://t.co/LlUtUoFpvy


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 18:15:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1026894679667863553

  • Will someone please explain to me how this is hate speech? I write about the dev

    Will someone please explain to me how this is hate speech? I write about the dev

    Will someone please explain to me how this is hate speech? I write about the development of truth, duty, and reciprocity, in the context of religion, tradition, norm, law and politics. And people read into it? Is that what?
    #Facebook #Censorship https://t.co/RNJ5bateao


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 18:13:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1026894106696601600

  • AND THE FREQUENCY OF SEX Television and the frequency of sex by Tyler Cowen Augu

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w24882#fromrssTELEVISION AND THE FREQUENCY OF SEX

    Television and the frequency of sex

    by Tyler Cowen August 6, 2018 at 12:42 pm in Data Source Television

    Substitutes are indeed everywhere:

    —This paper examines the association between television ownership and coital frequency using data from nearly 4 million individuals in national household surveys in 80 countries from 5 continents. The results suggest that while television may not kill your sex life, it is associated with some sex life morbidity. Under our most conservative estimate, we find that television ownership is associated with approximately a 6% reduction in the likelihood of having had sex in the past week, consistent with a small degree of substitutability between television viewing and sexual activity. Household wealth and reproductive health knowledge do not appear to be driving this association.”—

    That is from a new NBER paper by Adrienne Lucas and Nicholas Wilson.

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w24882#fromrssUpdated Aug 7, 2018, 4:14 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 16:14:00 UTC