Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

@ Bernard Mitochondrie(… “you are a legend in some” … ) The more enemies a man has the more substantive his threat to them. Friends tell us little. Enemies tell us a great deal. The fact that people must counter-signal to defend their malinvestments from my arguments is simply evidence of their malinvestments, and nothing more. I attacked the libertards and ancaps as a means of marketing. Not because I wanted to change their malinvestments. But because I wanted to deny them the signals from those malinvestments. A cult of the law is a compliment for continuing western civilizations central competitive value. I can’t ask for higher praise or greater success. I’m arrogant so that I can (a) draw in and defeat pretentious sophists like you (which I did today), and (b) becasue it causes people to use emotion and more readily expose their incentives and mistakes, and (c) to counter the signal value of sophomoric arguments (like I’m doing to you), so that the male attempt to seek dominance signals at my expense is frustrated. In person, anyone who has met me will tell you I’m patient, kind, helpful, humorous (except in the face of intellectual dishonesty). I mean, you shot your wad and you’ve shown you’ve got nothing but sophisms, false premises and confusions. And worse, that you don’t understand at all what i”m talking about by asserting that I engage in justificationism rather than survival (falsificationism). I mean, in that sense you’re kinda ‘dumb’ because even the newbs tend to get that part figured out. Your vocabulary and structure of argument suggest you have intellectual capacity, but your values suggest you have low sexual social economic and political market value, and are trying to compensate by a means that does not seem to be working at any scale whatsoever.

@ Bernard Mitochondrie(… “you are a legend in some” … ) The more enemies a man has the more substantive his threat to them. Friends tell us little. Enemies tell us a great deal. The fact that people must counter-signal to defend their malinvestments from my arguments is simply evidence of their malinvestments, and nothing more. I attacked the libertards and ancaps as a means of marketing. Not because I wanted to change their malinvestments. But because I wanted to deny them the signals from those malinvestments. A cult of the law is a compliment for continuing western civilizations central competitive value. I can’t ask for higher praise or greater success. I’m arrogant so that I can (a) draw in and defeat pretentious sophists like you (which I did today), and (b) becasue it causes people to use emotion and more readily expose their incentives and mistakes, and (c) to counter the signal value of sophomoric arguments (like I’m doing to you), so that the male attempt to seek dominance signals at my expense is frustrated. In person, anyone who has met me will tell you I’m patient, kind, helpful, humorous (except in the face of intellectual dishonesty). I mean, you shot your wad and you’ve shown you’ve got nothing but sophisms, false premises and confusions. And worse, that you don’t understand at all what i”m talking about by asserting that I engage in justificationism rather than survival (falsificationism). I mean, in that sense you’re kinda ‘dumb’ because even the newbs tend to get that part figured out. Your vocabulary and structure of argument suggest you have intellectual capacity, but your values suggest you have low sexual social economic and political market value, and are trying to compensate by a means that does not seem to be working at any scale whatsoever.