“The idea that China is now the driving economic power in the world, I think, is illusory or somewhat of a fallacy,” … ”China has “recklessly built a system that’s going to need to restructure and that just so happens to be metastasizing right when Trump becomes elected,” “This is a fire that’s been smoldering and it’s now starting to burn, and Trump is just more gasoline.”—Kyle Bass via Bloomnerg
(i was off by six years)
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-26 05:28:00 UTC
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/executive-order-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements
“(d) Produce a comprehensive study of the security of the southern border, to be completed within 180 days of this order, that shall include the current state of southern border security, all geophysical and topographical aspects of the southern border, the availability of Federal and State resources necessary to achieve complete operational control of the southern border, and a strategy to obtain and maintain complete operational control of the southern border.”
“Sec. 5. Detention Facilities. (a) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately construct, operate, control, or establish contracts to construct, operate, or control facilities to detain aliens at or near the land border with Mexico.”
“Sec. 8. Additional Border Patrol Agents. Subject to available appropriations, the Secretary, through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall take all appropriate action to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and all appropriate action to ensure that such agents enter on duty and are assigned to duty stations as soon as is practicable.”
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 23:39:00 UTC
—“I feel like I need to be on mescaline to think on his plane.”—Dan Donley
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 23:05:00 UTC
—“if we only had moral thoughts, what would the poor churchmen find to do?”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 17:51:00 UTC
by Stephen Sage:
–“Peterson does not have a sophisticated argument. His whole apologia relies on a radical redefinition of the concept of truth/being that neither he nor anyone else can consistently implement in any other field of study, or even everyday life. He’s saying, “It’s good for us to believe in (my conception of) God, therefore God exists.”
This same logical maneuver could be used to justify any number of stupid beliefs or to justify the suppression of good research. Plenty of religious people reject(ed) Peterson’s precious Darwinism not because it’s not true but because of some vague intuition that “Darwinism might be bad for us.” SJWs reject Peterson’s analysis of human nature and criticism of progressivism because “it’s bad for us to believe that.” I don’t trust people to make that kind of judgment as it influences the kind and quality of information I have access to.
Darwinism is not designed to solve metaethical problems. Peterson, being a kind of arch-liberal, seems to want to smuggle in a very non-Darwinian universalism with his concern about which things are good to believe. Good for whom, Jordan? Perhaps we should not learn how viruses work because they could be weaponized and used to hurt people. But what if I get to decide whom they hurt? Whose genetic success am I supposed to care about here?
That podcast was painful. Although I find some value in his lectures, Peterson reinforces my prejudice that Catholicism is saturated with pseudo-intellectualism, which is about as infuriating as anti-intellectualism of fundamentalist protestants. He also embarrasses himself with his constant propagandistic invocation of “the scary Nazis!”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 12:55:00 UTC
“US” –
by Paul Genova
I’m noticing that a lot of you aren’t graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost.
In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump.
Some of you are apparently “triggered” because you are posting how “sick” you feel about the results.
How did this happen you ask?
You created “us” when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created “us” when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created “us” when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
You created “us” when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created “us” when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created “us” when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
You created “us” when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
You created “us” when you lied and said we could keep our insurance plans and our doctors.
You created “us” when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created “us” when you attacked our flag.
You created “us” when you took God out of our schools.
You created “us” when you confused women’s rights with feminism.
You created “us” when you began to emasculate men.
You created “us” when you decided to make our children soft.
You created “us” when you decided to rewrite school history books and remove the truth about our founders
You created “us” when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
You created “us” when you attacked our way of life.
You created “us” when you decided to let our government get out of control.
You created “us” the silent majority.
You created “us” when you began murdering innocent law enforcement officers.
You created “us” when you took a knee, or stayed seated or didn’t remove your hat during our National Anthem.
And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
With ballots, not riots.
With ballots, not looting.
With ballots, not blocking traffic.
With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of “us”.
“YOU” created “US”.
It really is just that simple
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 18:33:00 UTC
—“Give birth to at least 3 copies of the change you wish to see in the world.”—Adam Voight
(i’m gonna use that quote a dozen times a year, no question)
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 14:12:00 UTC
ON PETERSON VS HARRIS
(by James Augustus Berens)
Justificationism makes conflation necessary, and lying possible.
Criticism leads to de-conflation, and makes lying (false testimony) less probable.
Dr. Peterson is engaging in justificationism and it makes him vulnerable to error. I don’t doubt his intentions, but I think he intuits the problem—that testimony/truth has a moral dimension—but he wrongfully conflates the two in order to justify the restoration/imposition of natural law onto the informational commons.
His errors can be corrected by (a) accepting truth as warranty of due diligence against error, bias and deceit, (b) adding moral consistency as a category of criticism for the social sciences, and (c) holding property-en-toto as the empirical measure for dispute resolution and commensurability across the inter-temporal division of perception and labor (what he vaguely refers to as Darwinian survival).
But he is a teacher, not a prosecutor or judge. The problem is that his conflation makes him a priest. History has given us enough of those.
We need Truth.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 14:07:00 UTC
RT @Graf_von_Dienen: @tradslav No… I mean we accept our nature as conquerors, scientists, navigators, etc and not say no. Read Junger. fo…
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 00:48:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823693942617161728
Retweeted David (@Graf_von_Dienen):
@tradslav No… I mean we accept our nature as conquerors, scientists, navigators, etc and not say no. Read Junger. follow @curtdoolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 19:48:00 UTC