Form: Quote Commentary

  • Again, All Stereotypes Are True

    October 30th, 2018 12:55 PM AGAIN, ALL STEREOTYPES ARE TRUE

    First Impressions of Personality Traits From Body Shapes Ying Hu, Connor J. Parde, Matthew Q. Hill, … First Published October 22, 2018 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618799300 https://t.co/zCti4BNwcT Abstract People infer the personalities of others from their facial appearance. Whether they do so from body shapes is less studied. We explored personality inferences made from body shapes. Participants rated personality traits for male and female bodies generated with a three-dimensional body model. Multivariate spaces created from these ratings indicated that people evaluate bodies on valence and agency in ways that directly contrast positive and negative traits from the Big Five domains. Body-trait stereotypes based on the trait ratings revealed a myriad of diverse body shapes that typify individual traits. Personality-trait profiles were predicted reliably from a subset of the body-shape features used to specify the three-dimensional bodies. Body features related to extraversion and conscientiousness were predicted with the highest consensus, followed by openness traits. This study provides the first comprehensive look at the range, diversity, and reliability of personality inferences that people make from body shapes.

  • Joslin Demonstrates The Argument

    October 30th, 2018 12:24 PM by Bill Joslin [T]ruth, as a semantic axiom, with limitless constellations of interpretive frames. Correspondence presumes an existential frame. An existential frame provides a means of checking and vetting outside of the presumptions of the context one might bring to an assertion – that being testability of its existence. This testability then defines the methodology. The methodology then presumes the existential frame and uses said method to update the interpretive frame. By doing so a feedback between interpretation, methodology occurs and is measured by existence (what can be measured or observed – and how) this allows both the interpretive frame and methodology to be updated (both are provisional). This affords the most robust means of coherence to truth (small ‘t’ truth) in the context of truth as a semantic axiom i.e truthful and honest reporting. (CD: when you can understand and make that argument on your own, ” you are there “.

  • Joslin Demonstrates The Argument

    October 30th, 2018 12:24 PM by Bill Joslin [T]ruth, as a semantic axiom, with limitless constellations of interpretive frames. Correspondence presumes an existential frame. An existential frame provides a means of checking and vetting outside of the presumptions of the context one might bring to an assertion – that being testability of its existence. This testability then defines the methodology. The methodology then presumes the existential frame and uses said method to update the interpretive frame. By doing so a feedback between interpretation, methodology occurs and is measured by existence (what can be measured or observed – and how) this allows both the interpretive frame and methodology to be updated (both are provisional). This affords the most robust means of coherence to truth (small ‘t’ truth) in the context of truth as a semantic axiom i.e truthful and honest reporting. (CD: when you can understand and make that argument on your own, ” you are there “.

  • Theists and Their Permanent Totalitarianism

    THEISTS AND THEIR PERMANENT TOTALITARIANISM by @Goran Dahl [T]here is one word that theists and occultists in general hate above all other words in the entire world, and that word is “evidence”. When they see this word, they are appalled and provoked. How can someone not believe in their religion or the esoteric? How can someone read their religious texts and not take their word for it? Before you know it, they let out a resounding shriek: “Fedora!”, soon to be followed by “Scientism!” – as if they knew what that meant. They are all predictable; not one of them differs from the other in the least. Theists will never be pleased with you until you subscribe to their ways unconditionally. Nobody in the so-called alt-right is even remotely as dangerous as the theists, because if they could, they would relegate us back to the Middle Ages and beyond.

  • Theists and Their Permanent Totalitarianism

    THEISTS AND THEIR PERMANENT TOTALITARIANISM by @Goran Dahl [T]here is one word that theists and occultists in general hate above all other words in the entire world, and that word is “evidence”. When they see this word, they are appalled and provoked. How can someone not believe in their religion or the esoteric? How can someone read their religious texts and not take their word for it? Before you know it, they let out a resounding shriek: “Fedora!”, soon to be followed by “Scientism!” – as if they knew what that meant. They are all predictable; not one of them differs from the other in the least. Theists will never be pleased with you until you subscribe to their ways unconditionally. Nobody in the so-called alt-right is even remotely as dangerous as the theists, because if they could, they would relegate us back to the Middle Ages and beyond.

  • “We Must Restore Limits to The Taker”

    October 30th, 2018 2:13 PM “WE MUST RESTORE LIMITS TO THE TAKER” by Luke Weinhagen [I]n taking ruthlessness (competition unhindered by forbearance) off the table we have allowed “I kill you and take your stuff” to be replaced with “I outvote you and take your stuff”. It is the same threat of violence underpinning both iterations, but the latter removes the limit of direct risk to the taker. We need to be ruthless enough to restore limits to the taker, no matter how the taker fills in the blank within the statement “I ________ you and take you stuff”. What the parasite fills the blank with (guilt, shame, lies, demographics, etc…), ruthlessness must match. In short – We need to say ‘No” and ruthlessly mean it.

  • More Divided Than Ever? Try 1972?

    (FB 1540920393 Timestamp) THE WORM TURNS: THE OVERTON WINDOW MOVES CLOSER EVERY SINGLE DAY

    Is this worse than 1968?
    by Pat Buchanan Are we more divided than we have ever been? Are our politics more poisoned? Are we living in what Charles Dickens called “the worst of times” in America? Is today worse than 1968? Certainly, the hatred and hostility, the bile and bitterness of our discourse, seem greater now than 50 years ago. But are the times really worse? 1968 began with one of the greatest humiliations in the history of the American Navy. The U.S. spy ship Pueblo was hijacked in international waters and its crew interned by North Korea. A week later came the Tet Offensive, where every provincial capital in South Vietnam was attacked. A thousand U.S. troops died in February, 10,000 more through 1968. On March 14, anti-war Sen. Gene McCarthy captured 42 percent of the vote in New Hampshire against President Johnson. With LBJ wounded, Robert Kennedy leaped into the race, accusing the president who had enacted civil rights of “dividing the country” and removing himself from “the enduring and generous impulses that are the soul of this nation.” Lyndon Johnson, said Kennedy, is “calling upon the darker impulses of the American spirit.” Today, RFK is remembered as a “uniter.” With Gov. George Wallace tearing at Johnson from the right and Kennedy and McCarthy attacking from the left – and Nixon having cleared the Republican field with a landslide in New Hampshire – LBJ announced on March 31 he would not run again.

    Four days later, Martin Luther King, leading a strike of garbage workers, was assassinated in Memphis. One hundred U.S. cities exploded in looting, arson and riots. The National Guard was called up everywhere and federal troops rushed to protect Washington, D.C., long corridors of which were gutted, not to be rebuilt for a generation. Before April’s end, Columbia University had exploded in the worst student uprising of the decade. It was put down only after the NYPD was unleashed on the campus. Nixon called the Columbia takeover by black and white radicals “the first major skirmish in a revolutionary struggle to seize the universities of this country and transform them into sanctuaries for radicals and vehicles for revolutionary political and social goals.” Which many have since become. In June, Kennedy, after defeating McCarthy in the crucial primary of California, was mortally wounded in the kitchen of the hotel where he had declared victory. He was buried in Arlington beside JFK. Nixon, who had swept every primary, was nominated on the first ballot in Miami Beach, and the Democratic Convention was set for late August. Between the conventions, Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev sent his Warsaw Pact armies and hundreds of tanks into Czechoslovakia to crush the peaceful uprising known as “Prague Spring.” With this bloodiest of military crackdowns since the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Moscow sent a message to the West: There will be no going back in Europe. Once a Communist state, always a Communist state! At the Democratic convention in Chicago, the thousands of radicals who had come to raise hell congregated nightly in Grant Park, across from the Hilton where the candidates and this writer were staying. Baited day and night, the Chicago cops defending the hotel, by late in the week, had had enough. Early one evening, platoons of fresh police arrived and charged into the park clubbing and arresting scores of radicals as the TV cameras rolled. It would be called a “police riot.” When Sen. Abe Ribicoff took the podium that night, he directed his glare at Mayor Richard J. Daley, accusing him of using “Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago.” Daley’s reply from the floor was unprintable.

    Through September, Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey could not speak at a rally without being cursed and shouted down. Describing the radicals disrupting his every event, Humphrey said, these people “aren’t just hecklers,” but “highly disciplined, well-organized agitators. … Some are anarchists and some of these groups are dedicated to destroying the Democratic Party and destroying the country.” After his slim victory, Nixon declared that his government would take as its theme the words on a girl’s placard that he had seen in the Ohio town of Deshler: “Bring us together.” Nixon tried in his first months, but it was not to be. According to Bryan Burrough, author of “Days of Rage, America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence,” “During an 18-month period in 1971 and 1972, the FBI reported more than 2,500 bombings on U.S. soil, nearly 5 a day.” No, 2018 is not 1968, at least not yet Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/is-this-worse-than-1968/#tvuOzu3OV1eazsLt.99

  • More Divided Than Ever? Try 1972?

    (FB 1540920393 Timestamp) THE WORM TURNS: THE OVERTON WINDOW MOVES CLOSER EVERY SINGLE DAY

    Is this worse than 1968?
    by Pat Buchanan Are we more divided than we have ever been? Are our politics more poisoned? Are we living in what Charles Dickens called “the worst of times” in America? Is today worse than 1968? Certainly, the hatred and hostility, the bile and bitterness of our discourse, seem greater now than 50 years ago. But are the times really worse? 1968 began with one of the greatest humiliations in the history of the American Navy. The U.S. spy ship Pueblo was hijacked in international waters and its crew interned by North Korea. A week later came the Tet Offensive, where every provincial capital in South Vietnam was attacked. A thousand U.S. troops died in February, 10,000 more through 1968. On March 14, anti-war Sen. Gene McCarthy captured 42 percent of the vote in New Hampshire against President Johnson. With LBJ wounded, Robert Kennedy leaped into the race, accusing the president who had enacted civil rights of “dividing the country” and removing himself from “the enduring and generous impulses that are the soul of this nation.” Lyndon Johnson, said Kennedy, is “calling upon the darker impulses of the American spirit.” Today, RFK is remembered as a “uniter.” With Gov. George Wallace tearing at Johnson from the right and Kennedy and McCarthy attacking from the left – and Nixon having cleared the Republican field with a landslide in New Hampshire – LBJ announced on March 31 he would not run again.

    Four days later, Martin Luther King, leading a strike of garbage workers, was assassinated in Memphis. One hundred U.S. cities exploded in looting, arson and riots. The National Guard was called up everywhere and federal troops rushed to protect Washington, D.C., long corridors of which were gutted, not to be rebuilt for a generation. Before April’s end, Columbia University had exploded in the worst student uprising of the decade. It was put down only after the NYPD was unleashed on the campus. Nixon called the Columbia takeover by black and white radicals “the first major skirmish in a revolutionary struggle to seize the universities of this country and transform them into sanctuaries for radicals and vehicles for revolutionary political and social goals.” Which many have since become. In June, Kennedy, after defeating McCarthy in the crucial primary of California, was mortally wounded in the kitchen of the hotel where he had declared victory. He was buried in Arlington beside JFK. Nixon, who had swept every primary, was nominated on the first ballot in Miami Beach, and the Democratic Convention was set for late August. Between the conventions, Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev sent his Warsaw Pact armies and hundreds of tanks into Czechoslovakia to crush the peaceful uprising known as “Prague Spring.” With this bloodiest of military crackdowns since the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Moscow sent a message to the West: There will be no going back in Europe. Once a Communist state, always a Communist state! At the Democratic convention in Chicago, the thousands of radicals who had come to raise hell congregated nightly in Grant Park, across from the Hilton where the candidates and this writer were staying. Baited day and night, the Chicago cops defending the hotel, by late in the week, had had enough. Early one evening, platoons of fresh police arrived and charged into the park clubbing and arresting scores of radicals as the TV cameras rolled. It would be called a “police riot.” When Sen. Abe Ribicoff took the podium that night, he directed his glare at Mayor Richard J. Daley, accusing him of using “Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago.” Daley’s reply from the floor was unprintable.

    Through September, Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey could not speak at a rally without being cursed and shouted down. Describing the radicals disrupting his every event, Humphrey said, these people “aren’t just hecklers,” but “highly disciplined, well-organized agitators. … Some are anarchists and some of these groups are dedicated to destroying the Democratic Party and destroying the country.” After his slim victory, Nixon declared that his government would take as its theme the words on a girl’s placard that he had seen in the Ohio town of Deshler: “Bring us together.” Nixon tried in his first months, but it was not to be. According to Bryan Burrough, author of “Days of Rage, America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence,” “During an 18-month period in 1971 and 1972, the FBI reported more than 2,500 bombings on U.S. soil, nearly 5 a day.” No, 2018 is not 1968, at least not yet Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/is-this-worse-than-1968/#tvuOzu3OV1eazsLt.99

  • Getting These Ideas Into a Format for Normies

    October 30th, 2018 1:51 PM GETTING THESE IDEAS INTO A FORMAT FOR NORMIES

    —“I’m just trying to get your ideas into a format that registers on a level with normal people aside from some superficial respect for scientific sounding words and phrases but instead upon a deeper spiritual and emotional level.”—- Christian Kalafut

    [I] understand. I cannot reduce logic of this depth to comforting analogy when it it precisely the use of comforting analogy for the purpose of deception that I have constructed it for. Normal people are not capable of calculus, economics, programming, law, or formal logic. They are merely the BENEFICIARIES of it when used by those of us who can. If you merely explain that it is possible to use the law to prohibit the financial sector, the media, politicians and the academy from taking advantage of them by lying to them, and that Propertarianism provides a method of writing the law in order to make that possible, they will understand. Because the work consists largely of: (a) a single value-independent language of logic, science, ethics, politics, economics, and law. (b) a set of criteria for testing whether or not statements made in that language (which is very close to law already) is false (such that it may still be true but it is not false or dependent upon pretense of knowledge). (c) that we can add this to the constitution and the courts fairly easily. And in doing so allow us to continue market support of what we favor, and court suppression of falsehoods that we don’t. (d) and if we do this most of the ‘redistributive demands’ can be made possible by disempowering of the financial, academy, media, and state sector, so that those proceeds can instead by consumed by the people (citizens), (e) so that once again it is possible to bear and rase a family on one income, pay for one’s house, and then save for retirement for the vast majority of the laboring, working, middle, and upper middle classes. That’s it. That’s what they have to understand. The rest of it is just the technical means of constructing, debating, writing, administering, and judging the law such that all of that is possible. It would be as great a return as the scientific revolution. Because the vast majority of the problem ordinary people face today is that the systems by which they are defrauded are so complicated that it takes people like you can I to explain it to them – and why they suffer from it. This is very profound program. It is larger than marxism, and completes the scientific revolution by producing a logic and science of the social sciences, an an institutional means of suppressing the conquest of our civilization by deception, using marxism, postmodernism, feminism and the organized institution of deception by the state, academy, media, financial sector. That’s alll people need to know. They do not need to know calculus, only have a vague understanding of how statistics can be used. They do not need to undrestand propertarianism (whether you call it natural law, or the law of information). They just need to understand that these tools help us restore our civilization to civility. So, as a reminder: Again, there exists both EDUCATION (meaning via positiva) and DECIDABILITY(Science via negativa) I do the latter so that others may better teach the former. I don’t do RELIGION (Demand for Supernatural Authoritarian Conformity) or PHILOSOPHY (Persuasive Moral Sophistry). I do Law, Science, and Logic. (Decidability). And one day I hope either I or others will do EDUCATION. ps: ( My preference all along, and our strategy all along, has been that I do the theory others do the education, becuase frankly the difference between me and my frame of understanding and that of normies is that of a difference in species. I can’t empathize or sympathize well enough to do their storytelling.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.

  • “There’s no way to be ruthless enough to defend the gains of hundreds of thousan

    —“There’s no way to be ruthless enough to defend the gains of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, representing thousands of lifetimes spent braving the ice, war, and plagues, to produce a healthier, smarter genome.”—@[11804727:2048:Steve Pender]


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 13:19:00 UTC