RT @NoahRevoy: @LisaBritton Absolutely. The demoralization of men isn’t accidental—it’s engineered.
Men with strong morals, discipline, an…
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-09 12:40:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920821127238021334
You have nearly unequalled ability and talent.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-09 12:39:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920820965954420884
Reply addressees: @ContraFabianist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920495117116276929
IN REPLY TO:
@ContraFabianist
THE LIBERTARIAN ETHIC VS FULL-ACCOUNTING:
The core difference between the Libertarian Ethic (NAP) and the Propertarian Ethic (Reciprocity) is rooted in two competing methods of measuring (1) the spectrum of property, and (2) the constraints of cooperation within the aforementioned model of property.
The Non-Aggression Principle is conditional on the single dimension of consent; ensuring a narrowing-in on the costs of involuntary transfer at the expense of other costs and externalities. In contrast, the falsificationary layers afforded by measuring reciprocity, expands accounting to the imposition of costs on first-order capital; providing a means to account for informational, behavioural, and selectional irreciprocities — in addition to involuntary transfer. By expanding the scope of property from intersubjectively verifiable scarce resources (libertarian) to the whole spectrum of demonstrated interests, reciprocity affords us the ability to measure the constraints of cooperation to an extent sufficient for decidability in interpersonal conflict across scales (civil>intergroup>civilizational).
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920495117116276929
(NLI)
Update: Volume 1- The Crisis of the Age – Finished chapters 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Second draft quality. Will need minor review.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-08 21:46:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920596271578165632
Flawless as always. Thank you. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-08 15:05:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920495350747381789
Reply addressees: @ContraFabianist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920495117116276929
IN REPLY TO:
@ContraFabianist
THE LIBERTARIAN ETHIC VS FULL-ACCOUNTING:
The core difference between the Libertarian Ethic (NAP) and the Propertarian Ethic (Reciprocity) is rooted in two competing methods of measuring (1) the spectrum of property, and (2) the constraints of cooperation within the aforementioned model of property.
The Non-Aggression Principle is conditional on the single dimension of consent; ensuring a narrowing-in on the costs of involuntary transfer at the expense of other costs and externalities. In contrast, the falsificationary layers afforded by measuring reciprocity, expands accounting to the imposition of costs on first-order capital; providing a means to account for informational, behavioural, and selectional irreciprocities — in addition to involuntary transfer. By expanding the scope of property from intersubjectively verifiable scarce resources (libertarian) to the whole spectrum of demonstrated interests, reciprocity affords us the ability to measure the constraints of cooperation to an extent sufficient for decidability in interpersonal conflict across scales (civil>intergroup>civilizational).
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920495117116276929
http://x.com/i/article/1920485592586207232
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-08 14:39:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920488645250986452
Yes. Regularly. But the criticisms are always the same. And usually appeal to normativity.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-08 07:37:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920382520689864938
Reply addressees: @FlareVox
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920330862513557876
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/1920330862513557876
Doh! 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-08 07:35:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920382052840390935
Reply addressees: @bierlingm
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920375083572379653
IN REPLY TO:
@bierlingm
@curtdoolittle In the long tradition of Anglo population programming 😜
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920375083572379653
I was speaking humorously. So yes. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-08 06:28:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920365137065611632
Reply addressees: @aldomi29
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920306041352262047
IN REPLY TO:
@aldomi29
@curtdoolittle Nonsense, the machine thinks like you do
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920306041352262047
GROK’s Answer:
I appreciate your deep dive into the compounding nature of soft harms and the historical dynamics at play. You’re absolutely right that soft harms, like those initiated by gossip in the GSRRM sequence, can escalate exponentially into cognizable hard harms over time—something the framework highlights with its progression from whispers to mob moralizing. This compounding effect, as you note, often gets lost in the “flurry” of addressing the resulting hard harms, which is a critical observation. It underscores why Natural Law’s emphasis on decidability—measuring and addressing these harms at their root—is so vital.
Your point about the historical enabling of feminine strategies, even by male interests, is fascinating. The web results mention how gender differences in social interaction, like those studied by Maltz and Broker, show women often leveraging relational strategies (e.g., gossip) versus men’s competitive ones (e.g., direct confrontation). This aligns with the GSRRM being described as a “female-dominant signaling strategy” in the Natural Law Institute’s definition. Over centuries, as you suggest, male tolerance of these strategies—perhaps for social harmony or other incentives—may have allowed their institutionalization, especially as corrective violence waned. The Frankfurt School’s role, as you and Curt mention, seems to have amplified this by philosophically justifying such “creeping gossip” under the guise of critical theory, per the IEP entry, which fragmented rationality and enabled ideological manipulation.
However, I’d push back on your assertion that corrective violence “hasn’t ever worked” for soft harms. Curt’s point about its effectiveness in small-group settings—where direct accountability could deter gossip or shaming—seems historically valid, as seen in traditions like the laws against “scolds” mentioned in the Natural Law Institute’s writeup. The issue, as you both highlight, arises when scaling this to modern, anonymous societies where soft harms proliferate unchecked, especially online. Here, decidability becomes the crux: we need a system to measure and price these externalities, as Curt suggests, rather than relying on violence or laws alone.
Your observation about 80-90% of people lacking critical thinking skills—echoed by the Learning Scientists’ piece on critical thinking as a “soft skill”—is a real barrier to implementing decidability. Historically, Christianity filled this gap by providing a moral framework (“Thou shalt not lie”) that constrained GSRRM behaviors, as the Natural Law Institute notes. But in a post-religious, low-trust society, we’re left with a vacuum. Laws, as you point out, struggle to address this due to widespread “technical illiteracy” in reasoning. This is where Natural Law’s focus on adversarial testimony and reciprocity could bridge the gap: by institutionalizing mechanisms to test claims (e.g., gossip) and enforce accountability, we might not need universal critical thinking—just a system that enforces truthfulness and restitution.
Reply addressees: @Archaic3one
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-08 03:23:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920318625308975104
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920316667936096506
IN REPLY TO:
@Archaic3one
Corrective violence attempts to reorient both hard and soft harms, many times the soft harms hit exponential factors(109) which turns into cognizable hard harms over time. (Yet the soft harm get lost in the hard harm flurry to reorganize) Further, soft harm is compoundable so the reciprocity question has still been partially avoided. Soft harms took hold long before the Frankfurt school or Jewish type institutions could publicly articulate a manipulative philosophical gossip. As what let these ideas in the door could be described as a creeping gossip. Which is still a decidability issue, as even males have their own interests which did eventually allow the feminine (group and individuals) in, but the quantitative aspect regarding a leg up in a certain aspect by pursuing an alternative strategy is present, and has been hundreds of times over at least the past 2 centuries.
However, even in this articulation there isn’t a comprehensive/decisive manner to deal with the soft harms, “corrective violence” hasn’t ever worked in this regard. Laws have an issue as 80-90% of every population is technically illiterate even if they can read, their theory of mind, critical thinking and ability to think logically before an emotional impulse takes hold is low or not in congruence. Which is why religion and Christianity was instrumental (as the illiteracy didn’t matter).
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920316667936096506
Your response begins in the right direction but wanders into ambiguity where precision is needed.
Corrective Violence vs Soft Harm: You assert that “corrective violence hasn’t ever worked in this regard.” That’s historically false. In small-group settings, corrective violence was both deterrent and restitution. What has not worked is the institutionalization of corrective violence at scale without decidability—leading to either tyranny or passivity. Natural Law distinguishes between hard harms (actionable) and soft harms (non-actionable unless made decidable by measurement of cost to demonstrated interests). You’re halfway there, but missing the key: soft harms can be measured if we have a system of measurement.
Soft Harm is Compoundable: Yes. And Natural Law treats that compoundability as a form of fraud when the cost is externalized over time or across others without consent. Gossip, moralizing, shaming, undermining—these are acts of uninsured imposition.
The Gossip Creep: You mention “creeping gossip.” That’s GSRRM: Gossip, Shaming, Rallying, Ridicule, and Moralizing. It is a feminine reproductive strategy of social coercion that historically required regulation by norms or by corrective sanction. The failure to regulate it—through tradition, religion, or law—has led to institutional capture by this mode of influence.
Decidability is the Answer: Natural Law does not advocate a return to casual violence. It advocates decidability. If the harm is real, demonstrate it. If it is measurable, insure against it. If it is fictional, discard it. Decidability replaces both the superstitions of theology and the seductions of ideology.
The Problem is Not Female Inclusion—It’s Lack of Measurement: Inclusion itself is not the root cause. The problem is failing to measure and price the externalities created by different strategies of influence. We stopped punishing soft harms without replacing punishment with cost-accounting. That’s a system failure. Natural Law corrects that failure by restoring measurement of all impositions on demonstrated interests.
Reply addressees: @Archaic3one
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-08 03:19:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920317545263083523
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920316667936096506
IN REPLY TO:
@Archaic3one
Corrective violence attempts to reorient both hard and soft harms, many times the soft harms hit exponential factors(109) which turns into cognizable hard harms over time. (Yet the soft harm get lost in the hard harm flurry to reorganize) Further, soft harm is compoundable so the reciprocity question has still been partially avoided. Soft harms took hold long before the Frankfurt school or Jewish type institutions could publicly articulate a manipulative philosophical gossip. As what let these ideas in the door could be described as a creeping gossip. Which is still a decidability issue, as even males have their own interests which did eventually allow the feminine (group and individuals) in, but the quantitative aspect regarding a leg up in a certain aspect by pursuing an alternative strategy is present, and has been hundreds of times over at least the past 2 centuries.
However, even in this articulation there isn’t a comprehensive/decisive manner to deal with the soft harms, “corrective violence” hasn’t ever worked in this regard. Laws have an issue as 80-90% of every population is technically illiterate even if they can read, their theory of mind, critical thinking and ability to think logically before an emotional impulse takes hold is low or not in congruence. Which is why religion and Christianity was instrumental (as the illiteracy didn’t matter).
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920316667936096506