Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR: “TALEB’S PROJECT FAILED.” And it failed because he is a ra

    LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR: “TALEB’S PROJECT FAILED.”

    And it failed because he is a racist against whites, and that is the origin of his entire argument. He hates the moral people that he profited from scamming.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-22 13:38:00 UTC

  • This makes no sense. There a set of systemic problems due to the combination ins

    This makes no sense. There a set of systemic problems due to the combination insufficiency of the law proper, the accumulated rents because of it, and the use of monopoly democracy rather than houses that conduct trades between the classes.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 16:43:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087390173770498050

    Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087388974946095104

    IN REPLY TO:

    @OctaveFilms

    @curtdoolittle @vdare Anthropomorphising constructs does not help me understand your position.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087388974946095104

  • SEE HOW THEY RUN. SECOND TODAY. Look at how they construct arguments in an attem

    SEE HOW THEY RUN. SECOND TODAY.

    Look at how they construct arguments in an attempt to preserve their comforts.

    —-“You still have to assume a framework for falsifying. If you don’t leave room for questioning said framework, it’s dogma. Is that not clear?”— Ben Quimby

    No it is not clear. logic is not dogma. justificationism is false and falsificationism is not. these are not open questions unless you find a means of opening them by falsifying falsificationism.

    An authority must command a dogma.

    Logic cannot be otherwise.

    Falsification cannot be otherwise.

    You can claim this is false somehow but defensive skepticism is just admission of failure to do so.

    —“To be fair, questioning doesn’t necessarily imply falsifying. Nobody wants to falsify logic, AFAIK; what they want is to “hint”, let’s say (b/c you can’t do this logically), that some truths, like logic itself, are meta-logical.”—Ben Quimby

    —“It’s not admissable, that’s true. And then, if they can’t testify to it, we have to resort to deciding on intent. That’s true. What a weird puzzle. I see both sides. Assuming there are such things as meta-logical truths, this would appear to throw a bit of a wrench in the whole prosecution of non-logical information thing. And you’re naturally worried about being consistent with what gets prosecuted. You can’t even argue that it’s worth sacrificing meta-logical truths, b/c your framework won’t even allow you to acknowledge them as such. And if it did, you might not make that argument. But as someone who can see these “truths”, at least provisionally, the answer here (cost-benefit analysis) is not at all clear to me.”—Ben Quimby

    “Define meta-logical truths”

    (There aren’t any)

    —-“[One can’t coherently define meta-coherence; that comes with the territory.] Take ‘change’ (process) for example. It’s not definable, it’s not falsifiable, and yet we don’t subordinate it to something lesser, like fiction. We acknowledge change as some kind of fact or truth, as something that “just is”, something that “can’t be otherwise”, and yet it hasn’t passed our formalized tests of truth.”— Ben Quimby

    :Meta-coherence” means intuitionistic, free-associations, not open to analysis. (There is nothing not open to analysis, only not open to testing.)

    To define change is very easy. Time=rate of entropy. Change is any perceivable difference in constant relations over time. That is what it means, and that is what it must mean, and that is what we are capable of percieving, because that is the only capacity of our neurons.

    —“Yeah, perception, difference, constancy, relations, time; more meta-analytical terms. They’re meaningful, no doubt; just not in a way we can reference concretely. As for neuronal capacities, I question whether we really know what we mean by that.

    At any rate, the point isn’t to debate this. The point is to test for the ability to step into a separate lens: Can you see what they see without interpreting via your current frame? Hence the “hard problem” question: Do you UNDERSTAND the hard problem as it is seen through the eyes of those who think it’s a valid problem? If you could show something like that, I think it would be extremely powerful.

    I look at things like this: If I can demonstrate comprehension of both my perspective and the other guy’s (on their terms), and they can only demonstrate comprehension of their own, then it’s more likely I hold the superior (more comprehensive) position. Anyways, I’m trying to get away from internet stuff these days. Yesterday was a spur of the moment type thing–a relapse, if you will. It shant happen again. Cheers.”—

    If i can demonstrate both but also the degree of falsity of both it is moel likely that the least false least fictional most parsimonious holds te superior more comprehensive position,

    The hardest part of each major revolution: reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism has been the recalcitrance of those invested in the comforting fictions that they hold dear.

    Testimonialism is a revolutionary as the revolutions in reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism.

    And like those who have malinvested in moralism, malinvested in scripturalism, malinvested in rationalism, the malinvestment is driven out of the market by superior investment.

    -Cheers 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 16:02:00 UTC

  • Good Criticism

    Good criticism. A few things.

    —“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabble rouser – he’s barely coherent for most of us let alone capable of inspiring a mob.”–

    Totally agree. Although my behavior as CEO, and as an intellectual consist of very, very different techniques. And I don’t particularly like myself as a CEO, even if I am good at it.

    —“He does, however, have training in people management or is naturally good at it. He knows how to bring men into a fold, how to flatter them and make them feel special or important.”—

    Um. I use the “king of the hill game” method of teaching.

    –“…cult…”—

    I would be the worst possible cult leader. I’ve said all along that ‘leadership will emerge’ (and it does). Because I do not see myself, or want to see myself, as other than a mad scientist of political revolution. If I was a cult leader type I would try to hold all the power myself rather than try to build a cadre of talented people, and train them to go out and be the equivalent of the jesuits and inquisition against the left. It is very hard to see my constitutional reform as anything other than an extremely practical and thorough reformation of the 20th century postwar order and the redistribution of capital to the middle class from the parasitic classes. This occurs in every civilization with relative frequency. We must continually incrementally suppress parasitism – because man continually incrementally invents means of parasitism. Now Picketey would say that this is a natural feature of current capitalism. Pareto would say it is a necessary feature of the production of wealth. Evolution would say that it is merely class rotation. And I would say it is merely a failure to maintain the competition of via negativa law and via positiva markets to continuously incrementally suppress new inventions of parasitism whenever new means of rents are invented. My view, like the georgists, would be that land rents go to the monarchy, and taxation go to the commons.

    —-“It’s not a cult. My use of that word was flippant. A better description would be that the primary motivation, at the initial stage for newcomers is to win favour with the big chief (Curt) and less so commit fully to the ideas. You do however delegate to a considerable degree and, as you say, are more than happy to bring others up than hold onto the power base.”—

    —“You’re also genuinely motivated by good ideas and not ego which is quite rare. My point really was that it’s extremely difficult to eliminate the negative aspects of ‘Alpha-worship’. Corruption of the initial framework, regardless of how well it began, then becomes inevitable as members less capable of handling the ideas defend the position, or territory, more aggressively in order to maintain their position and remain useful. I notice that followers who seem to actually understand the material are less supplicatory, less aggressive to criticisms by outsiders and are generally less sycophantic.”—

    I agree. On the other hand i am very grateful that these devotees prevent GSRRM, defend the brand, and save me the time and effort of self defense. This discourages idiots from wasting my time so that we get better criticisms. The one thing I get from the best people is to not waste time with those who are a waste of time.

  • Good Criticism

    Good criticism. A few things.

    —“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabble rouser – he’s barely coherent for most of us let alone capable of inspiring a mob.”–

    Totally agree. Although my behavior as CEO, and as an intellectual consist of very, very different techniques. And I don’t particularly like myself as a CEO, even if I am good at it.

    —“He does, however, have training in people management or is naturally good at it. He knows how to bring men into a fold, how to flatter them and make them feel special or important.”—

    Um. I use the “king of the hill game” method of teaching.

    –“…cult…”—

    I would be the worst possible cult leader. I’ve said all along that ‘leadership will emerge’ (and it does). Because I do not see myself, or want to see myself, as other than a mad scientist of political revolution. If I was a cult leader type I would try to hold all the power myself rather than try to build a cadre of talented people, and train them to go out and be the equivalent of the jesuits and inquisition against the left. It is very hard to see my constitutional reform as anything other than an extremely practical and thorough reformation of the 20th century postwar order and the redistribution of capital to the middle class from the parasitic classes. This occurs in every civilization with relative frequency. We must continually incrementally suppress parasitism – because man continually incrementally invents means of parasitism. Now Picketey would say that this is a natural feature of current capitalism. Pareto would say it is a necessary feature of the production of wealth. Evolution would say that it is merely class rotation. And I would say it is merely a failure to maintain the competition of via negativa law and via positiva markets to continuously incrementally suppress new inventions of parasitism whenever new means of rents are invented. My view, like the georgists, would be that land rents go to the monarchy, and taxation go to the commons.

    —-“It’s not a cult. My use of that word was flippant. A better description would be that the primary motivation, at the initial stage for newcomers is to win favour with the big chief (Curt) and less so commit fully to the ideas. You do however delegate to a considerable degree and, as you say, are more than happy to bring others up than hold onto the power base.”—

    —“You’re also genuinely motivated by good ideas and not ego which is quite rare. My point really was that it’s extremely difficult to eliminate the negative aspects of ‘Alpha-worship’. Corruption of the initial framework, regardless of how well it began, then becomes inevitable as members less capable of handling the ideas defend the position, or territory, more aggressively in order to maintain their position and remain useful. I notice that followers who seem to actually understand the material are less supplicatory, less aggressive to criticisms by outsiders and are generally less sycophantic.”—

    I agree. On the other hand i am very grateful that these devotees prevent GSRRM, defend the brand, and save me the time and effort of self defense. This discourages idiots from wasting my time so that we get better criticisms. The one thing I get from the best people is to not waste time with those who are a waste of time.

  • Good criticism. A few things. —“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabb

    Good criticism. A few things.

    —“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabble rouser – he’s barely coherent for most of us let alone capable of inspiring a mob.”–

    Totally agree. Although my behavior as CEO, and as an intellectual consist of very, very different techniques. And I don’t particularly like myself as a CEO, even if I am good at it.

    —“He does, however, have training in people management or is naturally good at it. He knows how to bring men into a fold, how to flatter them and make them feel special or important.”—

    Um. I use the “king of the hill game” method of teaching.

    –“…cult…”—

    I would be the worst possible cult leader. I’ve said all along that ‘leadership will emerge’ (and it does). Because I do not see myself, or want to see myself, as other than a mad scientist of political revolution.

    If I was a cult leader type I would try to hold all the power myself rather than try to build a cadre of talented people, and train them to go out and be the equivalent of the jesuits and inquisition against the left.

    It is very hard to see my constitutional reform as anything other than an extremely practical and thorough reformation of the 20th century postwar order and the redistribution of capital to the middle class from the parasitic classes.

    This occurs in every civilization with relative frequency. We must continually incrementally suppress parasitism – because man continually incrementally invents means of parasitism.

    Now picketey would say that this is a natural feature of current capitalism. Pareto would say it is a necessary feature of the production of wealth. Evolution would say that it is merely class rotation. And I would say it is merely a failure to maintain the competition of via negativa law and via positiva markets to continuously incrementally suppress new inventions of parasitism whenever new means of rents are invented.

    My view, like the georgists, would be that land rents go to the monarchy, and taxation go to the commons.

    —-“It’s not a cult. My use of that word was flippant. A better description would be that the primary motivation, at the initial stage for newcomers is to win favour with the big chief (Curt) and less so commit fully to the ideas. You do however delegate to a considerable degree and, as you say, are more than happy to bring others up than hold onto the power base.”—

    —“You’re also genuinely motivated by good ideas and not ego which is quite rare. My point really was that it’s extremely difficult to eliminate the negative aspects of ‘Alpha-worship’. Corruption of the initial framework, regardless of how well it began, then becomes inevitable as members less capable of handling the ideas defend the position, or territory, more aggressively in order to maintain their position and remain useful. I notice that followers who seem to actually understand the material are less supplicatory, less aggressive to criticisms by outsiders and are generally less sycophantic.”—

    I agree. On the other hand i am very grateful that these devotees prevent gsrm, defend the brand, and save me the time and effort of self defense. This discourages idiots from wasting my time so that we get better criticisms.

    the one thing i get from the best people is to not waste time with those who are a waste of time.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-20 14:25:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/50813449_10156925173892264_308092123

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/50813449_10156925173892264_308092123

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/50813449_10156925173892264_3080921238470656000_o_10156925173887264.jpg YA WANNA BET THIS MORON DOESN”T QUESTION BUT ACCUSES, OR ENGAGES IN GSRM?Alain DwightPeople seem to lead with their strongest point, doubtful he has anything more to offer.Jan 18, 2019, 11:48 AMLisa OuthwaiteYou are very accessible. It’s a lovely quality you have. Given that you’re likely to be far more productive not spending your hours answering daft questions on Facebook, do you choose to be accessible or do you just find it very difficult not to answer people’s questions? (This is one of those daft question, btw 😉 )Jan 18, 2019, 11:53 AMRob RandallAnd that was an excellent response Curt. Aspies of the world unite, lol!Jan 18, 2019, 12:02 PMCurt DoolittleI figure policing this stuff is a cost, just like auditing the feed. It’s the cost of doing this in public and the value I get from it, because I don’t have a few classrooms full of grad students to experiment on. lol

    Unless I’m working on something very difficult, I work in say 50 minute increments, with 20-30 minute breaks, and I do it all day long. When it’s difficult I disappear for hours and then come back. These ‘breaks’ are fun, keep me fresh, satisfy the extrovert, and let me go back to work.

    Also, it provides levity.Jan 18, 2019, 12:07 PMCurt DoolittleOh, I don’t take it seriously. Just another young butthurt ancap.

    Just having some fun shit-talking. ;)Jan 18, 2019, 12:08 PMChristian WarwickLove Curts intolerance…. No really I love Curts intolerance. In future propetarian world every mouse pad needs to have an electric shock function to deal with the ignorant shitheads.Jan 18, 2019, 12:09 PMHugh McVeyjfc imagine being this wrong. curt will talk to anyone anytime.Jan 18, 2019, 12:12 PMAlain DwightYes, figured it was a rhetorical question.

    It’s obvious when people lead with a bunch of empty shit talking (not to be confused with shit talking backed up by arguments)

    The ancaps and libertarians are not happy to have their moral high-ground destroyed lolJan 18, 2019, 12:19 PMJames GregoryI’d say Block could give you a run for your money on the accessibility front (at the very least with how much he WANTS to be accessible), he’s just a complete boomer when it comes to tech so you can only reach him via email.

    But the idea that it’s somehow hard to get hold of you is ridiculous.Jan 18, 2019, 12:22 PMMikal DukmakPlease keep the intolerance high, I enjoy the clean atmosphereJan 18, 2019, 1:52 PMSolomon VolodymyrCurt What do you do in your breaks?Jan 18, 2019, 2:02 PMFlavio DuminucoEpic, don’t mess with CurtJan 18, 2019, 2:22 PMSteven J. WoronHere ya go. Just change the copy as neededJan 18, 2019, 2:31 PMCurt DoolittleUm. I know walter personally and fairly well. I do not want to debate him because I would win and it would make neither of us look good in the process. I will debate him. And we have come close once. But I would not want to go thru the ghetto ethics and all that other stuff with him. Mostly because aside from being rather misguided he is a decent person.Jan 18, 2019, 2:53 PMJames GregoryI was responding to the “most accessible public intellectual” comment you made, saying that he also makes a significant effort in trying to communicate with people who have questions (just as you do). The two of you are probably the best examples of this on the right.

    I know you could smash him in a debate. That’s not what I was talking about. Lovely fellow (met him at a Mises U), would love to have a drink with the guy, but whether you could debate him isn’t even a question I’d bother bringing up anymore.Jan 18, 2019, 3:04 PMRandall PostblockPlease enjoy tearing apart the ancaps on my page. They drive me crazy. Sometimes I can’t believe I’ve managed to stay friends with these guys for nearly three years. We never have agreed on much because I was already alt-libertarian when I met them. I never had an ancap phaseJan 18, 2019, 3:07 PMRandall PostblockI’m Randall Scott Wolfe/Randall Danger by the way. Banned on those accounts. I love what you do and interacting with you. Thanks for being awesome!Jan 18, 2019, 3:08 PMChris MoyerI see hierarchies of markets everywhere now. These people just deflect because of their inability to compete at the higher echelons…creating an excuse that would undermine the legitimacy of the hierarchy in the first place.

    And so the pattern just repeats itself again and again across all fieldsJan 18, 2019, 3:11 PMSam WhiteheadThe cultured man has the obligation to be intolerantJan 18, 2019, 4:03 PMCurt DoolittleOh agreed. he is very accessible particularly if you want to write a paper, he will do anything to help you.Jan 18, 2019, 4:19 PMMax AdnerI think these sort of things are missed teaching opportunities.Jan 18, 2019, 4:20 PMCurt DoolittleThat’s only because you haven’t tried to teach enough ancaps below the threshold… lolJan 18, 2019, 4:38 PMMax AdnerCurt Doolittle It is probable. I see it as teaching opportunities of the audiences, not individuals choosing to engage. But while I preach I, myself, don’t always practice — I understand how futile it is sometimes to use some boneheads even as teaching aides and props.Jan 18, 2019, 4:44 PMJames GregoryNicholas Palmer Castle what page? I could use the target practice..Jan 18, 2019, 5:15 PMRandall PostblockMy personal fbJan 18, 2019, 5:15 PMDominic DeLucaThis makes perfect sense. If you tolerated these people, the serious people would have to absorb the cost of your tolerance in the form of reduced accessibility and reduced quality of the discussion. You could say that people who come here for no other reason than to argue like an asshole are engaging in a type of parasitism.Jan 18, 2019, 7:36 PMCurt DoolittleWhat do I do on breaks? Shit talk morons, audit the feeds email, etc, answer questions, riff off comments, read the day’s news, review the day’s ssrn papers and blogs, make coffee/sparkling water/food, run to the shops, visit doctors, make calls, work on a piece of tech, take out the trash, chat with the neighbors, make sure my mother hasn’t fallen, run out of oxygen or gone off the deep end, feel guilty about whatever it is I didn’t get done, talk to family, miss friends, download some b-movie to watch at night – the normal life crap that everyone else does. Dunno why I should be much different from everyone else – other than I take naps most afternoons.Jan 18, 2019, 8:20 PMOdin WehrmanHey I know that guy!Jan 18, 2019, 9:03 PMRandall PostblockHave you seen the thread Doolittle is talking about yet? It’s pretty greatJan 18, 2019, 9:04 PMRandall PostblockIf you like seeing people from LRU get assblasted anywayJan 18, 2019, 9:05 PMEric BurkettGalaxy Brain Bob decided he couldn’t handle hearing what a little bottom bitch he is from me so maybe you all should remind him.Jan 18, 2019, 9:07 PMOdin WehrmanI have, I was just happy to see that Curt thinks he is as dumb as I thought. I’ll hop in if he wants to really double down lmaoJan 18, 2019, 9:07 PMRandall PostblockScrew it, post is public now. Ya’ll have fun https://www.facebook.com/luther.rockwell.37/posts/155826775404253Jan 18, 2019, 9:09 PMOdin WehrmanMake that larper post from 2 weeks ago public too.Jan 18, 2019, 9:10 PMRandall PostblockI’m not sure which one you meanJan 18, 2019, 9:11 PMOdin WehrmanJan 18, 2019, 9:12 PMEric BurkettI’ve told you guys for months how stupid he was, even worse than the mormon.Jan 18, 2019, 9:13 PMRandall PostblockDone: https://www.facebook.com/luther.rockwell.37/posts/149381322715465Jan 18, 2019, 9:13 PMOdin WehrmanThe amount of mental gymnastics they are able to perform just because they are mixed race is baffling.Jan 18, 2019, 9:19 PMEric BurkettI’ve never even seen him actually take a position, any position, about anything. Nor any ancap for that matter, except to merely say ‘abolish the state’ and condemn any and all other words and actions. It’s infinitely dumber than communism.Jan 18, 2019, 9:27 PMOdin WehrmanHe has a weird obsession with projecting sexual insecurity type arguments. He is uncomfortably familiar with blacked. com.

    “Lol your just mad your white daughters are going to be raped by Somalians” is the position he has consistently taken.Jan 18, 2019, 9:36 PMOdin WehrmanJan 18, 2019, 11:13 PMLisa Outhwaitelol I read the second one as “audit the Fed” I was thinking “my god, he’s productive!!” 😂Jan 19, 2019, 5:35 AMEric BurkettYes, he told me that anyone who wanted their wife to be able to stay home and raise children was stupid because she would be knee deep in swamp cock all day. It was immediately obvious that he was cuckolded by blacks while in prison, while also being dominated by blacks himself.Jan 19, 2019, 6:02 AMEric BurkettGalaxy Brain Bob on the right there, think I captured it pretty well.Jan 19, 2019, 7:52 AMYA WANNA BET THIS MORON DOESN”T QUESTION BUT ACCUSES, OR ENGAGES IN GSRM?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-18 11:44:00 UTC

  • THE BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR RELIGIOSITY? NOPE. by Bill Joslin The biological arg

    THE BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR RELIGIOSITY? NOPE.

    by Bill Joslin

    The biological argument for religiosity I find is flawed. Aaron Hill presented this to me a week or two ago. The mutual exclusion of reason and commitment which is often presented as the result of selection pressures due to religion.

    I’d offer an alternative hypothesis. we’ve evolved to err on the side of false positives and projected intention because this affords better risk management in regards to predation pressure. Whereas reason/investigation to ferret out a false positive would increase risk of predation.

    example to illuminate what I mean. An ape in the savanah hears a rustling in the grass beside them. Assuming the rustling is a predator (projected intention) opposed to the wind and fleeing would offer, on the aggregate, a better chance of surviving than investigating to verify the initial assumption wasn’t a false positive.

    This provides a selection pressure toward “faith” over reason and why reason does not come easily to us. (in other words the biology behind faith is not due to religion but rather predation pressure)

    Now, to take the biological responses we’ve inherited toward projected intention and false positives as justification for religiousity et al is to jump the is-ought gap. Just because we have these predilections (the “is”) doesn’t mean we “ought” to embrace them.

    The evidence is in – the incremental extrapolation of social and formal functions away from the church, religiosity and intuition allowed humans to break out of the Malthusian trap, move out from under discretionary rule and begin cultivating markets for agency across scale (individual – organizational, middle class).

    In short, the placebo effect and predilection for faith doesn’t warrant embracing obfuscation of causal relations when human progress has resulted from disambiguation across multiple domains.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 13:07:00 UTC

  • All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide

    All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:33:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

    Reply addressees: @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083850051489689606

    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/1083850051489689606

  • No one disputes the relationship between consciousness and language – only the d

    No one disputes the relationship between consciousness and language – only the degree. It still does not justify that the history of man is a long filter of anthropocentric perception and intuition as we gradually eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit – despite the priests.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:01:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083846377325690880

    Reply addressees: @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083838163171168257

    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/1083838163171168257