Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • “They are making a sequel to 2005’s War of the Worlds, It’s a couple of hours of

    —-“They are making a sequel to 2005’s War of the Worlds, It’s a couple of hours of high tension finger wagging, tears, screams and shaming as they sue for trillions in reparations.”—James Santagata

    (humor)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 22:07:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000498623115939841

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 20:14:00 UTC

  • “Should I read (Essayist)”— I think nietzsche is mandatory reading IF you can

    —“Should I read (Essayist)”—

    I think nietzsche is mandatory reading IF you can enjoy reading him. I think if you can’t handle nietzsche then try Evola for the esoteric and Chesterson for the realistic.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 20:00:00 UTC

  • “They are making a sequel to 2005’s War of the Worlds, It’s a couple of hours of

    —-“They are making a sequel to 2005’s War of the Worlds, It’s a couple of hours of high tension finger wagging, tears, screams and shaming as they sue for trillions in reparations.”—James Santagata

    (humor)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 18:07:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 18:05:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.quora.com/Should-I-become-an-Austrian-economist-Why-or-why-not/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=7e56d9c8&srid=u4Qv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 13:15:00 UTC

  • THE TRANSFORMATION BETWEEN MARXISM AND POSTMODERNISM. By Hicks

    THE TRANSFORMATION BETWEEN MARXISM AND POSTMODERNISM.

    By Hicks.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 11:15:00 UTC

  • ( Great feed, with excellent aesthetics, particularly the combination of craftsm

    ( Great feed, with excellent aesthetics, particularly the combination of craftsmanship, curiosity, novelty, whimsy, elegance, and fertility-beauty. Well done. 😉 )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 11:14:00 UTC

  • Eli on Female Coercion

    —“This is what women do. They mostly can’t think. And they mostly can’t argue. So to get their way, and to get what they want, they deploy “the feminine means of coercion” (shaming, ridicule, mockery, rallying, scolding, nagging, gossip, psychoanalysis) to try and raise the social and emotional costs of disagreement WITHOUT addressing legitimate points of controversy or noncomplience with their demands WITHOUT offering anything of value in return. These means are dishonest, because they can be deployed to attack any point of view to advance or defend any other. They have no necessary connection to the truth. They are parasitic, because they are means of attempting to secure the *benefits* of cooperation, for the practitioner, at a discount – without paying all of the necessary costs. And they poison the dialog and lead to a general breakdown in cooperation and good order, and to hostility, acrimony, and bile instead, often boiling over into violence and other, more costly forms of conflict (e.g. “fighting words.”) That’s why our ancestors punished and suppressed such behavior by a variety of means.But as restrictions on the use of violence and masculine coercion have proliferated and intensified, restrictions on rhetorical violence and feminine coercion have been lifted and abolished, feminizing and emasculating our society and placing it under the harping, nagging, screeching, demanding, devouring, parasitic, stifling, control of bitchy, entitled, overbearing, unplesent and mentally and emotionally fragile women. At a time like this, over a medium like this, physical retaliation or other means of imposing costs to discourage such behavior are not realistic. But I’m damn sure not going to back down in the face of such c-ntery. I’m only going to escalate and double down to deprive its practitioners of satisfaction and let them know that we are not cooperating, that I do not need or desire their cooperation, and if they are going to deploy dishonest and parasitic methods I am going to consider us to be in conflict and seek to escalate that conflict by any and all means at my disposal, principally (here) by retaliation in kind (insults.)”— Eli Harman
    May 25, 2018 8:09am
  • Eli on Female Coercion

    —“This is what women do. They mostly can’t think. And they mostly can’t argue. So to get their way, and to get what they want, they deploy “the feminine means of coercion” (shaming, ridicule, mockery, rallying, scolding, nagging, gossip, psychoanalysis) to try and raise the social and emotional costs of disagreement WITHOUT addressing legitimate points of controversy or noncomplience with their demands WITHOUT offering anything of value in return. These means are dishonest, because they can be deployed to attack any point of view to advance or defend any other. They have no necessary connection to the truth. They are parasitic, because they are means of attempting to secure the *benefits* of cooperation, for the practitioner, at a discount – without paying all of the necessary costs. And they poison the dialog and lead to a general breakdown in cooperation and good order, and to hostility, acrimony, and bile instead, often boiling over into violence and other, more costly forms of conflict (e.g. “fighting words.”) That’s why our ancestors punished and suppressed such behavior by a variety of means.But as restrictions on the use of violence and masculine coercion have proliferated and intensified, restrictions on rhetorical violence and feminine coercion have been lifted and abolished, feminizing and emasculating our society and placing it under the harping, nagging, screeching, demanding, devouring, parasitic, stifling, control of bitchy, entitled, overbearing, unplesent and mentally and emotionally fragile women. At a time like this, over a medium like this, physical retaliation or other means of imposing costs to discourage such behavior are not realistic. But I’m damn sure not going to back down in the face of such c-ntery. I’m only going to escalate and double down to deprive its practitioners of satisfaction and let them know that we are not cooperating, that I do not need or desire their cooperation, and if they are going to deploy dishonest and parasitic methods I am going to consider us to be in conflict and seek to escalate that conflict by any and all means at my disposal, principally (here) by retaliation in kind (insults.)”— Eli Harman
    May 25, 2018 8:09am