Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Context please. what will people retaliate against REGARDLESS of what you want o

    Context please. what will people retaliate against REGARDLESS of what you want or agree to. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-25 14:02:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878976603304468480

    Reply addressees: @Eric_Eibergen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878968805128638465

    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/878968805128638465

  • “Imagine sucking so much that you think elitism is a bad thing.”—Harald Magnus

    —“Imagine sucking so much that you think elitism is a bad thing.”—Harald Magnusson

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 13:22:00 UTC

  • KICKED OUT OF MOLYNEUX’S GROUP. Not exactly sure why other than saying he’s a gr

    KICKED OUT OF MOLYNEUX’S GROUP.

    Not exactly sure why other than saying he’s a great teacher, good analyst, but failed philosopher. And that he was a slow mover to the right.

    Moderator says I should call in. Followers say it would be unfair to Moly to debate him unprepared. I agreed and said so. I said that it would take me most of an hour to walk him through enough context. And that it would be boring or tedious for the audience. And that if he was a bit prepared, then he could carry on the conversation while maintaining his audience. So AFAIK, I was doing the right thing.

    Moderator says something along the lines of “if you’re so smart how come you’re not as successful?” Which I find strange because I’ve dominated in business, and I’m doing quite well in philosophy. But that said, I mean, how many philosophers of science or law have Moly’s audience (none), how many subscribers to the journal Science are there? (50k). I mean, does that mean that popularity determines truth content? Of course not. It’s usually the opposite, right?

    Now, I don’t know who the moderator is (DiMarco maybe?) but he found all of this offensive and apparently booted me.

    My ask was only that I would like to move Moly the rest of the way, but that it was unfair to do it by just calling in. As far as I know that’s just the moral thing to do.

    So maybe I switch tactics and go after Moly’s “Therapy Cult” and just deal with it until he debates me.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 12:47:00 UTC

  • Tell me, tell me, tell me. 😉

    Tell me, tell me, tell me. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 12:09:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878585947293720576

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878536342845640704

    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/878536342845640704

  • “Curt, You should talk to X!!!”— Anon Translated: Curt, I have this frame of r

    —“Curt, You should talk to X!!!”— Anon

    Translated: Curt, I have this frame of reference. Can you talk in my frame of reference?

    I get this all the time because some writer somewhere said something that made sense to somebody.

    In other words, “Can you do the work for me?”. So instead, say “so and so says this, and I felt this, can you tell me what you think about it?”

    Well you know I provided a universal frame of reference right? That’s what acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism do right?

    Why is it that I should talk to people who do NOT talk in a universal frame of reference?

    I don’t need to find a way to make excuses or lie in some other frame of reference in order to justify my objectives.

    It’s up to others to justify their frames of reference and objectives if they violate acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism: the natural law of reciprocity.

    Ya see? Its like asking a mathematician using measurements to talk in nonsense like ‘Oh, it’s about a country mile as the crow flies…”

    (Excuse my frustration.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 09:58:00 UTC

  • “Pilpul offends me. The fact that we’re not allowed to simply kill such creature

    —“Pilpul offends me. The fact that we’re not allowed to simply kill such creatures offends me. The fact that there is an entire people/culture/religion based around psychopathy as a group evolutionary strategy, offends me. Wasting a minute of my time slogging through that dreck, when it’s obvious someone is motivated to their core, by malice and duplicity, and will never even state a plain fact unless pinned down, with all alternatives denied, offends me to my core. It’s cognitively, and emotionally draining dealing with them. And they don’t even seem human. It’s like a malignant, unfathomable, hostile, alien, entity, with a human mask. And the damage it’s done, down through the years. It’s worth a lot of false positives to avoid false negatives in the identification and elimination of such evil.”—- Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 22:17:00 UTC

  • “Well, you’ve got to take a run at the bars sometimes if you want to know how bi

    —“Well, you’ve got to take a run at the bars sometimes if you want to know how big the cage is.”—Karl Grohe

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 19:58:00 UTC

  • (how many times i gotta say it. Please don’t include me in your anger-speech. Lo

    (how many times i gotta say it. Please don’t include me in your anger-speech. Look in the mirror. You, your parents, your grandparents, your relatives, their friends, that is who is responsible for our current state. It is trivially easy to defend against abrahamism whether christian jewish or islamic. If you don’t, then you’ve given the scorpion a ride you stupid frog. The only way to defeat it, is to kill it first.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 14:21:00 UTC

  • The amount of rationalization of one stupid thing or another by some subset of t

    The amount of rationalization of one stupid thing or another by some subset of the right never ceases to amaze me. Monkeys on the Left. Monkeys on the Right. Makes no difference.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 10:09:00 UTC

  • “I personally enjoy Molyneux’s delivery. Assholes need a voice too. Dont hate, b

    —“I personally enjoy Molyneux’s delivery. Assholes need a voice too. Dont hate, because we don’t give a f-ck about your feelings anyway”— Nilam Enliven

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 09:33:00 UTC