Form: Critique

  • Why Is Facebook Racist And Why Does It Make Life More Difficult?

    —-”Why is Facebook racist and why does it make life more difficult?”—-

    1 – Mark is a left wing outsider from NY.
    2 – Media people treat gossip as a skill and virtue and good, and are draw to media occupations. They are outsiders in productive industries.
    3 – FB hires mostly young inexperienced people and in particular benefits from immigration of people who are outsiders.
    4 – FB is a bit of a cult (as are Google, Amazon, certainly wikipedia and the academy.)
    5 – Once you consume the upper classes (he originally did) you can only expand the scope of people in your company by creating increasingly safer information environments for lower and lower (more easily offended) people from information that they disagree with.
    6 – In other words, it’s personal, cultural, and economic incentives.

    BUT WHY?

    Facebook, Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, Quora, and the Academy, the School System, the government bureaucracies, and in particular leftist politicians, all have greater incentives to serve inoffensive, bias-confirming, Dunning-Kruger-satisfying, mythology to their customers.

    People rarely want the truth. They want an excuse to feel their status is higher than it demonstrably is given market conditions. The human accounting system of self work is status. Self perceived, and other perceived. In fact, much of television and advertising exists to appeal to this vulnerability. Marxism Postmodernism as well as the Abrahamic REligions, all appeal to this weakness of desiring to be more genetically, reproductively, socially, economically, and politically ‘higher’ than they are. This is why hyperconsumption works. We do not teach people piety in the abrahamic sense, or mindfulness in the ‘woo’ sense, or stoicism in the scientific sense.

    When Marxism (The myth of the equality of the classes) was no longer intellectually possible by the 1950’s or 1960’s – despite the pseudosciences of Marx, Freud, Boaz, and the Frankfurt school, the Postmodernists (largely the French under Derrida and Americans like Rorty) changed the propaganda (“Institutional Narrative”) from Classism as the means by which the underclasses could not change their status due to (nonexistent) oppression, to Identity and Racism as the means by which the underclasses could not change their status due to (nonexistent) oppression.

    Remember that Marx, Boaz,Freud, and Frankfurt School – and even Cantor, are Pseudoscientific movements that fed the classes of previous farm labor and domestic service, newly-risen to consumers by the industrial (capitalist) revolution, a vast set of lies, in order to drown out the rather obvious work of Maxwell, Darwin, Weber, Pareto, Durkheim, Spencer, Nietzsche. And they used the same techniques as did the Abrahamic religions (Islam was a heresy of Christianity, and Christianity a Heresy of Judaism, and Judaism a reaction to the invention of reason) to form an counter-revolution against the aristocratic, legal, and scientific revolution provided by the Romans, Greeks, and Persians. So the first dark age was created by Magical Religion, and the second dark age will either be created by reemergent Magical Religion or by Magical Knowledge we call “Pseudoscience”.

    Instead, we are —quite empirically — more or less desirable as mates, friends, coworkers, members of a polity, and citizens in a state, because we are more or less sociable (costly/rewarding), we are more or less reproductively desirable, more or less useful to one another in daily life, we are more or less useful to each other in production, more or less useful in organizing people to produce commons, and place more or less costs upon each other in social, economic, and political organization.

    In particular, in humans, the more symmetric, pedomorphic, aquiline, features are more desirable regardless of race, subrace, and for very good evolutionary reasons: easier detection of superior biology, easy detection of longer life, easy detection of more amenable termperaments, because of longer time for mental and social development, by the delay of sexual development, and lower depth of sexual development. In other words, greater pedomorphism and lower impulsivity and higher trust, and longer development cycles, create greater opportunity for cooperation, and the outsized returns of cooperation versus even the most capable individual.

    And among the Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families, we some have been more successful at eliminating the underclasses and thereby ‘domesticating’ themselves as we have domesticated animals. And some have been less successful at eliminating the underclasses, and have not domesticated themselves as we have domesticated many animals. As such the size of the underclass is much larger, and the median much lower, and therefore the institutions, traditions, morals, ethics, norms, habits, and manners are those that are suitbile to the majority.

    And this manifests itself largely in the ability to learn (which decreases rapidly at every seven to ten points of IQ, and in the ability of people to cooperate on increasingly complex divisions of labor while forgoing opportunities for self reward.

    And you can’t find evidence anywhere in the human world to contradict this that isn’t merely economic necessity among the most destitute and lonely.

    This is reality.

    So basically all companies, states, and religions that are not regulated by laws against the spread of falsehood, will harm a population by spreading falsehoods and feelgoods in interest of attracting revenues (companies), votes and taxes(states), and bodies(religion).

    ( Thankfully it is possible, at least in the near future to limit falsehoods and truths about mankind. Just as we limit what can be said about products and services. )

    End the lies.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Facebook-racist-and-why-does-it-make-life-more-difficult

  • EVIDENCE 1) article in military times promoting (falsely) the Tavor (israeli rif

    EVIDENCE

    1) article in military times promoting (falsely) the Tavor (israeli rifle).

    2) I post a criticism saying that it’s universally derided around the world as a terrible piece of equipment. And that it appears that the plastic revolution in pistols has been unsuccessful in rifles – and that the black rifle but with higher calibre and 416 plunger has won the day. (The only weapons to come out of the plastic revolution are the P90 because of its feed and ammo, and the AUG, which I still think despite its cost is about as good as it gets.

    3) This (((fellow))) deletes the comments https://www.facebook.com/hpinny that falsify the propaganda (false advertising).Updated Jan 25, 2018, 8:07 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-25 08:07:00 UTC

  • Evidence

    1) article in military times promoting (falsely) the Tavor (israeli rifle). 2) I post a criticism saying that it’s universally derided around the world as a terrible piece of equipment. And that it appears that the plastic revolution in pistols has been unsuccessful in rifles – and that the black rifle but with higher calibre and 416 plunger has won the day. (The only weapons to come out of the plastic revolution are the P90 because of its feed and ammo, and the AUG, which I still think despite its cost is about as good as it gets. 3) This (((fellow))) deletes the comments https://www.facebook.com/hpinny that falsify the propaganda (false advertising).
  • What do i know. i found shape of water unwatchable. parnassus too. very french,

    What do i know. i found shape of water unwatchable. parnassus too. very french, effeminate, childish. like the cook, his wife…and her lover. Gilliam is nearly alone in his field (british). And Tim Burton deeper. The french are europe’s cancer.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 13:32:00 UTC

  • What do i know. i found shape of water unwatchable. parnassus too. very french,

    What do i know. i found shape of water unwatchable. parnassus too. very french, effeminate, childish. like the cook, his wife…and her lover. Gilliam is nearly alone in his field (british). And Tim Burton deeper. The french are europe’s cancer.
  • What do i know. i found shape of water unwatchable. parnassus too. very french,

    What do i know. i found shape of water unwatchable. parnassus too. very french, effeminate, childish. like the cook, his wife…and her lover. Gilliam is nearly alone in his field (british). And Tim Burton deeper. The french are europe’s cancer.
  • What Is Your Review Of €œstar Trek Discovery”, Episode 1:12, “vaulting Ambition”?

    childish, cartoonish, intellectually insulting, and a progressive postmodern political drivel is revolting. keep the captain. lose the rest.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-review-of-Star-Trek-Discovery-episode-1-12-Vaulting-Ambition

  • What Is Your Review Of €œstar Trek Discovery”, Episode 1:12, “vaulting Ambition”?

    childish, cartoonish, intellectually insulting, and a progressive postmodern political drivel is revolting. keep the captain. lose the rest.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-review-of-Star-Trek-Discovery-episode-1-12-Vaulting-Ambition

  • Eric Weinstein On The Failure Of The Gated Institutional Narrative

    Including: – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula. – The Disagreeables, – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory. 1) Consider these adjectives: Embattled Controversial Divisive Reclusive Provocative Struggling Right-Wing Eccentric Self-styled Far-Left Recovering Disgraced Self-Promoting Free-thinking Volatile etc. 2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. 3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. 4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So…how can that be? 5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this. 6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target. Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality 7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn. And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability. 8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility. This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures. 9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn? 10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them. So something new *has* to happen. Here goes… Either: A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again. B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out. C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables. CLOSING My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb. –Eric Weinstein
  • Eric Weinstein On The Failure Of The Gated Institutional Narrative

    Including: – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula. – The Disagreeables, – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory. 1) Consider these adjectives: Embattled Controversial Divisive Reclusive Provocative Struggling Right-Wing Eccentric Self-styled Far-Left Recovering Disgraced Self-Promoting Free-thinking Volatile etc. 2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. 3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. 4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So…how can that be? 5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this. 6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target. Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality 7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn. And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability. 8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility. This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures. 9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn? 10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them. So something new *has* to happen. Here goes… Either: A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again. B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out. C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables. CLOSING My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb. –Eric Weinstein