—“WHY DO WOMEN ENGAGE IN NAXALT?”—
—“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288948118368752&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:08:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035499605990035456
—“Invention of mass media led to explosion of sophism. Add in social media so you can see what everybody is thinking, and it becomes clear – most people are just operating on instinct. Even most right-wingers. (What Haidt points out is readily observable. People cherry-pick data according to the narrative their instinct causes them to embrace.) It just so happens that the right-wing instinct builds civilization and the left instinct destroys it. Point is, this modern explosion of sophism (leftists overloading the discourse via mass media) hasn’t actually changed the underlying dynamic, which is the same as in the previous battles between the two instincts.”— —John Mark
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:06:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYR0H3DzXgWE CAN SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS BY MATURING POST HASTE
by Brandon Hayes
[Stop making justificatory arguments about feelings]
The convergence points of the brightest minds are obvious to anyone that is looking (an example below):
—“It’s the women who are going to stand-up to the women who are just trying to destroy conversation; and I think that that is something where, Jordan has talked about it; none of the men want to make this argument, it would be better optically if it were women saying “Hey, some of us are out of line! this is too much and it’s too aggressive and you can’t say “mansplaining” about EVERYTHING.” — Eric Weinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYR0H3DzXg
———–
“WHY DO WOMEN ENGAGE IN NAXALT?”
—“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the idea that trends exist, even if some individuals are outliers to this trend. Is it to do with the risk or social ostracism or one of these female power plays?”— A Friend
It’s not complicated:
Herd Instinct: Fear of being ostracized, ‘left behind’, or ‘left out of resource consumption’, or having her children face the same, because despite their children’s empirical value to the tribe,women want their children to have the best opportunities for social, economic, and reproductive success.
Men think of the tribe (generalization) women think of themselves (solipsism) and their offspring (individualism).
Female Herd “who will be harmed by this truth”,
-vs-
Male Pack “what opportunity can be seized by this truth”
Hence why monogamy was a compromise that succeeded by dividing labor, and while no one had perfection each person had a ‘chance’ of benefitting from the division of labor between the genders.
The question is, now that women are at least marginally as capable in the workforce within the boundaries of the majority of jobs ‘in the middle’ (easy jobs), we are returning to serial marriage, or single motherhood (maternalism).
To men, everything is a distribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.
– Curt Doolittle
—-
We ought not destroy competing packs to benefit the herds. Herds can’t respond efficiently to rapidly changing environments; what you get instead of problem solving is panic.
Panic among animals shortens their time horizons (they make quicker decisions less thought through) for shorter term gains. This mistake accumulates until the day of reckoning comes about. The day all of your “not planning for the future” comes back to haunt you.
Strong feelings are not the equivalent to being correct. There isn’t a feel good substitute for truth; no matter how much we’d like there to be!
https://www.facebook.com/brandon.hayes.5851/posts/10103416983160261Updated Aug 31, 2018, 9:56 AM
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:56:00 UTC
—“WHY DO WOMEN ENGAGE IN NAXALT?”—
—“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the idea that trends exist, even if some individuals are outliers to this trend. Is it to do with the risk or social ostracism or one of these female power plays?”—
Herd Instinct: Fear of being ostracized, ‘left behind’, or ‘left out of resource consumption’, or having her children face the same, because despite their children’s empirical value to the tribe,women want their children to have the best opportunities for social, economic, and reproductive success.
Men think of the tribe (generalization) women think of themselves (solipsism) and their offspring (individualism).
Female Herd “who will be harmed by this truth”,
-vs-
Male Pack “what opportunity can be seized by this truth”
Hence why monogamy was a compromise that succeeded by dividing labor, and while no one had perfection each person had a ‘chance’ of benefiting from the division of labor between the genders.
The question is, what behavior will men demonstrate now that women are at least marginally as capable in the workforce within the boundaries of the majority of jobs ‘in the middle’ (easy jobs), we are returning to serial marriage, or single motherhood (maternalism).
Without invasion by more primitive groups, we would expect to see the return to maternal households in the majority of the underclasses, and save paternal households in the upper classes – as was the case throughout most of history.
With the invasion of more primitive groups we should expect to see extermination of the less competitive single motherhood maternal family by the more competitive division of labor between male producers of income and female producers of the next generation. (which is what we are seeing.)
To men, everything is a disribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 08:08:00 UTC
—“Is saying that “women’s rights are human rights” a microaggression?”—
Of course it is, for the simple reason that women’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288802998383264&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 01:49:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035343719032147968
WHat you really mean is ‘To abandon their human mind, and return to their animal intuitions free of the burden of reason’.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 01:26:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035338003810590720
Reply addressees: @Roo12883907
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033730107255480321
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/1033730107255480321
I am not sure I understand this question. People act in their interests along different time lines from short (high time preference) to long (low time preference), and they do so because they are able to do so (agency) have the means (intelligence) and resources (training).
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 00:43:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035327271127658496
Reply addressees: @SmashMarxCult @jboschredux @BlackDawning
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035029105387941888
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/1035029105387941888
—“Is saying that “women’s rights are human rights” a microaggression?”—
Of course it is, for the simple reason that women’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests are in competition with men’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests, and that men’s interests advance the condition of women and children, while women’s interests undermine the compromise between men and women and destroy civilization (really) by uncontrolled hyper consumption, dysgenic reproduction, and political undermining by competing groups. Without women’s votes we would never have had a left leaning president, nor immigration on a scale that has created the conditions for civil war.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 21:49:00 UTC
As far as I know: 1) The last generation educated under pre-postmodern teachers and professors has been exiting participation (people are now in fifties to sixties or later). The generation of postmodern teachers and professors have taught this generation, at the same time parents have over protected, and immigrant labor has eliminated demand for youth labor. And has communicated with smart phones rather than learned to drive, earn money, and integrate and cooperate with people holding different (more mature) views. This generation was not raised to be independent functioning adults, but pets, just as (beginning in the 1970s) relationships were not economic but ‘friendships’ which led to the higher divorce rates and the nearly ubiquitous ‘starter marriages’ that compensate (expensively) for failures to prepare children for adulthood. 2) The (“pet generation”, Millennials, “I-Generation”) began entering the consumer customer base, entering the academic customer base, social media customer base, and graduating into the young-underpaid-wanna-be-journalist base, each market appealed to these new consumers. 3) The same access that gives the alt-right influence on the internet gives the politically correct access on the internet. So the pet generation and the responsible remaining generations (the pet generation ends at 95 according to Haidt). 4) The social media platforms and web news and entertainment sites are primarily populated by these people young (pet generation) individuals and they are creating demand in every market including the political market. 5) The victim narrative plays well for first and second generation immigrants from underclasses, who have no chance of rotation out of the primarily genetic middle classes as did previous generations, because the post war economic advantage of labor has been neutralized by the universal adoption of literacy, education, consumer capitalism financed by fiat money and state credit capacity, and vast populations now competing with american labor. 6) These factors are all coinciding with the one-to-one replacement of whites with hispanics, and the recognition by the white working classes that without elites they will be left behind to suffer equality with the new underclasses. Hence the increasing identification of race and party. I dunno. This is all pretty well studied material. The problem is – it’s contrary to both new-left and old right narratives. The republicans assumed as good fools of the enlightenment that the top and bottom would move toward the middle. It would have happened but immigration has masked the various immigrant state economies, with those lacking immigrant cities collapsing under the weight of New Deal and Great Society (Soviet style) relocation programs. Even those immigrant cities would collapse if not for debt capacity. Why this is difficult to understand is always beyond me.
As far as I know: 1) The last generation educated under pre-postmodern teachers and professors has been exiting participation (people are now in fifties to sixties or later). The generation of postmodern teachers and professors have taught this generation, at the same time parents have over protected, and immigrant labor has eliminated demand for youth labor. And has communicated with smart phones rather than learned to drive, earn money, and integrate and cooperate with people holding different (more mature) views. This generation was not raised to be independent functioning adults, but pets, just as (beginning in the 1970s) relationships were not economic but ‘friendships’ which led to the higher divorce rates and the nearly ubiquitous ‘starter marriages’ that compensate (expensively) for failures to prepare children for adulthood. 2) The (“pet generation”, Millennials, “I-Generation”) began entering the consumer customer base, entering the academic customer base, social media customer base, and graduating into the young-underpaid-wanna-be-journalist base, each market appealed to these new consumers. 3) The same access that gives the alt-right influence on the internet gives the politically correct access on the internet. So the pet generation and the responsible remaining generations (the pet generation ends at 95 according to Haidt). 4) The social media platforms and web news and entertainment sites are primarily populated by these people young (pet generation) individuals and they are creating demand in every market including the political market. 5) The victim narrative plays well for first and second generation immigrants from underclasses, who have no chance of rotation out of the primarily genetic middle classes as did previous generations, because the post war economic advantage of labor has been neutralized by the universal adoption of literacy, education, consumer capitalism financed by fiat money and state credit capacity, and vast populations now competing with american labor. 6) These factors are all coinciding with the one-to-one replacement of whites with hispanics, and the recognition by the white working classes that without elites they will be left behind to suffer equality with the new underclasses. Hence the increasing identification of race and party. I dunno. This is all pretty well studied material. The problem is – it’s contrary to both new-left and old right narratives. The republicans assumed as good fools of the enlightenment that the top and bottom would move toward the middle. It would have happened but immigration has masked the various immigrant state economies, with those lacking immigrant cities collapsing under the weight of New Deal and Great Society (Soviet style) relocation programs. Even those immigrant cities would collapse if not for debt capacity. Why this is difficult to understand is always beyond me.