Form: Definition

  • Let me give you an idea. CARDINAL: Positional names, ordinal logic, scale indepe

    Let me give you an idea.

    CARDINAL: Positional names, ordinal logic, scale independence context independence, and internally commensurable.

    ORDINAL: Qualitative names, ordinal logic, scale and context dependence, intersectionally commensurable.

    TRIANGULAR: Qualitative names,…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 18:25:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631359975309148160

    Reply addressees: @Will_Benge @Lord__Sousa @TyrantsMuse @johnslygore @TheAutistocrat @MartianHoplite @bryanbrey @LukeWeinhagen @ThruTheHayes @NoahRevoy @Turbo_Flux @InTruthVictori1 @Psyche_OS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631358664375427072

  • If you can’t describe a term in operational (computational) terms, you can’t dem

    If you can’t describe a term in operational (computational) terms, you can’t demonstrate you comprehend it, and aren’t engaging in the pretense of knowledge, or inflation, conflation, obscurantism, or deceit.

    You are using ’cause’ which may cause an effect as different from ‘information’ which may not.

    In other words, there is a difference between information and amplitude necessary to change state.

    This applies in digital, analog, operational, set, and linguistic contexts.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 17:26:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631345203519922202

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631321533086826498

  • ETYMOLOGY OF RACE, RACIST, RACISM (“People of a common ancestor”) Simple version

    ETYMOLOGY OF RACE, RACIST, RACISM
    (“People of a common ancestor”)
    Simple version. The concept and origin is ancient. Aristotle uses it.

    The meaning of RACE developed via the sense of “tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock” to “an ethnical stock, one of the great divisions of mankind having in common certain physical peculiarities” by 1774.

    The Modern Usage originates in the Fascist-and-Counter-Fascist propaganda of the 30’s. But appears largely in the 1950s as it was popularized by the Race Marxists.

    OUR DEFINITION (BEHAVIORAL ECON)
    –“Racism consists in assessing the cost of a group stereotype attribute against an individual of that group AFTER that individual has paid the cost to demonstrate their personal positive deviation away from that specific group stereotype attribute to you.” –Luke Weinhagen

    RACE
    race (n.2)
    [people of common descent] 1560s, “people descended from a common ancestor, class of persons allied by common ancestry,” from French race, earlier razza “race, breed, lineage, family” (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, which is of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish raza, Portuguese raça). Etymologists say it has no connection with Latin radix “root,” though they admit this might have influenced the “tribe, nation” sense, and race was a 15c. form of radix in Middle English (via Old French räiz, räis). Klein suggests the words derive from Arabic ra’s “head, beginning, origin” (compare Hebrew rosh).

    Original senses in English included “wines with characteristic flavor” (1520), “group of people with common occupation” (c. 1500), and “generation” (1540s).

    RACISM
    racism (n.)
    by 1928, in common use from 1935, originally in a European context, “racial supremacy as a doctrine, the theory that human characteristics and abilities are determined by race;” see racist, and compare the various senses in race (n.2) and racialism. Applied to American social systems from late 1930s.

    RACIST
    racist (n.)
    1932 (as an adjective from 1938), from race (n.2) + -ist. Racism (q.v.) is in use by 1928, originally in the context of fascist theories, and common from 1936. These words replaced earlier racialism (1882) and racialist (1910), both often used early 20c. in a British or South African context. There are isolated uses of racism from c. 1900.

    Earlier, race hatred (1852 of the Balkans, 1858 of British India, 1861 of white and black in America), race prejudice (1867 of English in India, 1869 of white and black in America, 1870 of the English toward Irish) were used, and, especially in 19c. U.S. political contexts, negrophobia. Anglo-Saxonism as “belief in the superiority of the English race” had been used (disparagingly) from 1860. Anti-Negro (adj.) is attested in British and American English from 1819.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-01 16:27:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630968101515698176

  • DEFINING RACISM AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT –“Racism can only consist of presuming

    DEFINING RACISM AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT

    –“Racism can only consist of presuming the cost of a group stereotype’s attribute against an individual of that group AFTER that individual has paid the cost to demonstrate their personal positive deviation away from that specific group stereotype attribute to you.”– Luke Weinhagen @LukeWeinhagen

    You cannot judge an individual by the properties of a class, but you can judge a class by the properties of its individual members.

    In other words, it is illogical, when presented with individual information counter to the properties of a class, to treat the member of class with the properties of that class, instead of his or her demonstrated properties.

    It is not racism to discuss group differences and attempt to produce institutions and policy that assist in treating us as individuals and groups who require different training in order to reach the same mindfulness, competency, and success.

    It’s NOT racism to state that if a group of people hate you because of your race, that it’s only intelligent and practical to seek separation, to eliminate the conflict, and allow both groups to produce the formal and informal commons they prefer.

    It’s racism NOT to do either of those things. Including denying them such that people remain unhappy, in conflict, and deprived of human flourishing. (What you’re implying you prefer.)

    We must govern with the people we have, with the biology we have, the genetics we have, and the demographic distributions we have.

    Liars claim they are heroic when they just lack the courage to admit the truth, solve the problem, and assist mankind in achieving desired ends.

    The feminine, equalitarian, responsibility evading, ethic is just cowardice and fear and neuroticism to avoid the settling of conflicts between groups, by pretense that avoiding conflicts between individuals will scale. (it doesn’t.)

    Nothing on the left ‘scales’. That’s what it means to be a leftist. (successful empathizing but failed systematizing.)

    No more lies. Including lying by wishful thinking.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 18:35:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630637920846528533

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630632497162731520

  • Free will questions only whether we have the choice to act morally or not, and t

    Free will questions only whether we have the choice to act morally or not, and therefore are accountable for our actions to others. It doesn’t propose anything else, and the concept has no meaning outside of that original question.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-27 03:59:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630054871108919300

    Reply addressees: @vivayo_can @ScottAdamsSays @elonmusk

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630050351880736770

  • WHO CREATES MONEY? Money consists of commodity money. Technically no one creates

    WHO CREATES MONEY?
    Money consists of commodity money. Technically no one creates commodity money any longer, everyone creates commodity money substitutes we call currencies, and almost exclusively fiat or monopoly State currencies.
    The treasury, the central bank, all dependent banks, any institution that can loan on a fractional reserve, every investment institution that can issue speculative debt instruments, and anyone who can issue credit via any of the above can create money substitutes.
    Why? Because while a Treasury (at least today) creates currency and coins as fiat money, the vast majority of monetary creation is through credit money: records of debt, all of which are insured by the State (to some degree), and therefore by the people, and backed only by present demand and speculation on the future production of the people whose surplus via taxes paid by the people.
    As such all fiat money, as a money substitute, consists of a share of stock in the corporation of the state, and trades on the markets as a share of the state.
    However, there is no current method of competing internationally against the capacity of States to issue shares to use as currency, to use as a money substitute, largely in the form of debt records, precisely because credit expansion is the most efficient method of producing incentives to produce while at the same time producing self-determination by sovereignty in demonstrated interest and reciprocity in display word and deed we call sovereignty, liberty, freedom, insurance, and security that we all appear to favor more so than their absence. 😉
    But, like I said, institutions lag. And this problem is easily corrected. And I’ve written the law to correct it. Had the bank of England started out ‘properly’ then it might not have. But they created the foundations of state money and banking, which from their origins maintained the control of that money by the investors in the central (state) banks.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-25 22:45:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629613642508369927

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629607518124273664

  • TEchnically I am not a rationalist. I’m an empiricist, and operationalist, which

    TEchnically I am not a rationalist. I’m an empiricist, and operationalist, which means I’m a scientist and logician. But you’d need quite a bit of knowledge to understand that computation is the end result of the myth, religion, philosophy, empiricism, science, logic, spectrum.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-24 22:11:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629242522760257538

    Reply addressees: @freeusefulinfo @BussySmeller2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629239844143505412

  • GOVERNMENTS HAVE NO RIGHTS. Let me help you: – A right consists, and can only co

    GOVERNMENTS HAVE NO RIGHTS.
    Let me help you:
    – A right consists, and can only consist of, and can only be created by, a group of insurers, who will insure a right. A right to demand an insurer defend one’s interest against those who impose upon them (deprive, harm, impeded).
    – To create this insurance, people form polities, and eventually governments and militaries to insure those rights.
    – So There is only one universal cause of rights: reciprocal insurance of self-determination by self-determined means: individual sovereignty over display, word, deed, and the proceeds obtained by them, withougt violating the sovereignty of others by the same criteria.
    – All other rights are mere application of the right to self-determination by self-determined means.
    – Only people can have rights. And people can organize into polities, states, alliances, and federations to secure rights for their people.
    – Governments cannot have rights.
    – Governments have capabilities – not rights.
    – Governments can create, deny, or destroy rights.
    – Western civilization is organized to construct rights.
    – Western governments are organized to construct rights.
    – Westerners may disagree on what constitutes a right, and seek to (falsely) claim rights extend to wants, privileges, and wishful thinking. But we do not disagree that we should construct rights.
    – When rights are constructed by people, governments, militaries, states, and federations, then empires are effectively prohibited. Because empires depend on depriving people of rights – particularly the right to self-determination by self-determined means.
    – The small, homogeneous, nation-state is the only political system under which rights are possible without depriving some other group of their want of the right of self-determination by self-determined means.
    – As such, under our right of self-determination by self-determined means, and the human rights necessary to preserve it, we are limited to producing safety in numbers,
    by alliances of nation-states in federations – and we are prohibited from empires.
    – This is the cause of remaining world conflict: China, Russia, and Iran – and anyone wishing to increase borders, are the remaining empires. Those empires have ‘castes’ (elites) that profit by predation (corruption) on their people.
    – And Russia, China, Iran (and those few remaining despotic regimes that prey on their people) wish to conquer and deprive other people of self-determination by self-determined means.
    – Insuring rights to self-determination by self-determined means, provides the opportunity and incentive for cooperation, provides rule of law to facilitate and defend cooperation, and suppress corruption (as much as possible at least).
    – And the evidence across the world is that every group of people is seeking that sovereignty necessary to produce self-determination by self-determined means and the rights necessary under it.
    – So just as farming spread around the world, creating states and empires, industry is spreading around the world creating nation-states and federations.
    – Would the people of China, Russia, and Iran prefer self-determination by human rights? Of course. They say so.
    – Also would the people of the world prefer to defend against the abuse of rights we call ‘liberalism’ that defend decadence, which is an imposition upon the rights to self-determination by self-determined means, that require the production of the first organization upon which all others depend in order to produce an intergenerational polity: the family? Yes.
    – The west does not live under rights, sufficient to preserve the family, and as a consequence, society, economy, and polity necessary to preserve those rights – because the west has licensed baiting into the hazard of decadence, as a harm to the institution of the family, and as a consequence, the society, economy, and polity.
    – As such, we must clarify the law, to prevent ‘harms’ of ‘liberalism’ (selfishness) harming the polity. (We did.)
    -FIN-


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-23 17:40:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628812102960922624

  • Moralizing: Dunno about others but we use the term moralizing as a criticism whe

    Moralizing:
    Dunno about others but we use the term moralizing as a criticism when it is used by women and the left to shame and rally for stating an unpleasant truth. In other words, when it is a statement of disapproval for speaking the truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-21 06:20:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627916250285330433

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627912243257176065

  • US LEGAL FOUNDATIONS: MAJORITY VS CONCURRENCY VS COMMONALITY (basics of anglo ru

    US LEGAL FOUNDATIONS: MAJORITY VS CONCURRENCY VS COMMONALITY
    (basics of anglo rule of law)

    1. Majority vote means the majority of the voting population.

    2. Concurrency means the majority of multiple groups within the total population voted in favor of or against something – the groups must concur. ergo, concurrent legislation. This means survival of testing in market conditions.

    3. Commonality means that the courts of multiple regions concur on the means of deciding a conflict. ergo, common law. This means survival of empirical testing in market conditions.

    4. Both methods are empirical. Both methods require Agreement and Consent before canonization (Legitimacy). ie: Concurrency to agree on legislation versus Commonality to agree on dispute resolution.

    5. America uses concurrent voting, to choose representatives, who use concurrent voting to produce legislation on the citizen’s behalf, where the legislation and disputes under that legislation must survive adversarial competition before the courts who decide those conflicts by the natural(scientific) common(empirical) law.

    6. The Natural Law consists of self-determination by self-determined means by sovereignty in demonstrated interest and reciprocity in display word and deed, limiting us to truthful reciprocal voluntary cooperation in all walks of life, and is a total prohibition on any authority other than that natural law and/or the consent of the people expressed in the common law, and concurrent legislation.

    7. This is the one and only test of the legitimacy of legislation or law. There is no other. And Americans are the only people on earth who still have legitimacy in their laws.

    There is more content in this one post than you will receive in most of the constitutional law course in law school.

    The fact that I have to teach this, because no one is taught it, should terrify us, because it is the reason our government is not authoritarian, or ideological or philosophical, but scientific.

    It should be recitable by every child.

    -FIN-


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-21 04:47:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627892806210531330