Curt Doolittle

Form: Quote Commentary

  • SUMMARY OF CONSERVATIVE POSITION —“I’ve had enough of Mos Eisley. I want Maybe

    SUMMARY OF CONSERVATIVE POSITION

    —“I’ve had enough of Mos Eisley. I want Mayberry.”— Susan

    Well, that really says it all, doesn’t it?

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 15:32:00 UTC

  • FROM AN INSIGHTFUL DISPUTE BETWEEN AFRICANS AND AMERICANS ON TWITTER (Content Wa

    FROM AN INSIGHTFUL DISPUTE BETWEEN AFRICANS AND AMERICANS ON TWITTER

    (Content Warning!!!) (This might be offensive!!!)

    This conversation is important. Why? Because we still find disputes between the more developed more rational and scientific, and less developed civilizations – particularly indian, islamic, jewish, and african.

    And we still find disputes between the classes: theological-occult-sophistry, marxist-postmodernist-feminist pseudoscience, and those of us in confucian-aristotelian civilizations (science and reason).

    While the dispute between Protestant-Catholic-Russian, Chinese, korean-japanese, and even christian pacific is limited to what is in our interest and in our preferences, and in our political organization and social responsibility that is the limit of our variation. We are all aristotelians now. But we have also succeeded at soft eugenics.

    So here is the (content warning!!!) dispute between an african referring to ‘african epistemology’ instead of ‘justification for group strategy’. And what I assume are members of the anglosphere explaining european epistemology.

    “Whiteness” is the pejorative term used by the african fellow to refer to the group strategy of western civlization.

    So “Whiteness” = “Racism” and use of Whiteness ~= A Marxist Critique.

    —“WHITENESS: Whiteness questions African epistemology simply because there’s no room in their normative framework to process this! I bet there’s a non-African you know who is an “expert” on African matters.”—

    —“Is there ever a scenario in which a white person questioning the thought in your head might do so because the thought itself, regardless of its origin, is nonsensical, unkind, and/or disturbing–in theory?”—

    —“No. And even you asking that is whiteness in action because you seem to think that white people can read other people’s thoughts.”—

    —“So in your opinion, any thought originating from a white person is automatically invalidated, correct?”—

    ·

    —“That’s not what I’m saying. Understand “whiteness” devoid of race. Whiteness is an ideology of domination. Its diabolical. Its anti- spiritual. Its anti-human. The more need to have it understood, deconstructed and demystified.”—

    1) Whiteness = Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism(Science), Reciprocity and Truth Regardless of Cost(Natural Law), Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities(Meritocracy), and suppression of underclass reproduction.

    2) Whiteness = Profiting from the domestication of animal man into civilized man using science, natural law, meritocracy, suppression of underclass reproduction, and direction of those savings to the production of the high returns on high trust commons.

    3) Whiteness = The fastest means of evolving man into gods we imagine by the use of the most adaptive artistic, intellectual, economic, social political means possible, under the most prosperous, peaceful, and enjoyable means possible.

    4) Whiteness = The means by which we dragged mankind kicking and screaming, one civilization and generation at a time, out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, hunger, starvation, disease, suffering, early death, and victimhood under an uncaring universe.

    5) Whiteness = Aristocracy, Elitism, Heroism, Excellence, Beauty, Truth, Reciprocity, Duty. And the reason you hate “Whiteness” is because you cannot meet that standard of excellence. It is because your genes cannot lie, like your mind and your words.

    6) But here is the test: While only europeans could have invented Whiteness, any people can practice “Whiteness” if they are willing to suppress the reproduction of the underclasses – which for some nations constitutes the vast majority of the people – so it’s politically impossible or impractical.

    8) Whiteness is the desire to transcend into gods, and not to devolve into animals again. Whiteness (white man’s burden) was our desire to profit from dragging mankind with us into godhood under the presumption that we could all be equal. But you rejected us – and we agreed.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 12:53:00 UTC

  • P EMPHASIZES THE COURT (effective) NOT VOTING (ineffective)

    Feb 11, 2020, 9:11 PM by John Mark [I]n any nation there will be capable and incapable people, wealthy and poor, etc – all across the spectrum. There is a huge difference between giving less capable people (who often tend to vote for free stuff stolen from others) “via-negativa” power thru P-law (the power to STOP violations of reciprocity) and giving them “via-positiva” power thru voting (the power to INITIATE violations of reciprocity). The Propertarian system does NOT allow less capable (often parasite-minded) people the ability to INITIATE violations of reciprocity, and at the same time it DOES allow everyone to stop violations of reciprocity. So you can see it solves 2 problems at once: It TAKES AWAY via-positiva initiating power from a demographic that has a majority of parasite-instinct people, and GIVES via-negativa power to STOP violations of reciprocity, to everyone. And under P-Law the average person WILL have MUCH more power to counter the well-heeled than today. First, keep in mind that poor people even today often have no trouble getting legal representation when the lawyers believe there is strong chance of a big financial reward. P-Law would provide significant $ rewards – violators of reciprocity will have to pay damages, and the richer the violator, the greater the financial reward for taking them to court will be in many cases. Second, under P-Law there will be very few if any frivolous lawsuits because loser has to pay extra damages. This reduces/eliminates the ability of rich people to use their wealth to “play the lawsuit game” as a tool of control over the poor. Everyone regardless of wealth level will be much more careful about their actions and words in general (so as not to end up in court by violating reciprocity), and careful about going to court (poor people if they have a good case will have no trouble finding a good lawyer, rich people will not be able to use frivolous lawsuits to intimidate & wear out opposition). (Curt has thought this through very thoroughly. People just need to stick around long enough to find out that the multiple changes outlined in the propertarian system fix multiple problems as well as they can be fixed, keeping in mind that no fix will be 100% perfect.)

    —“The importance of voting is evidence the American experiment failed. The greater the importance, the greater the evidence, the greater the failure.”— Luke Weinhagen

  • No More Woo Woo in Cognitive Science Please

    Feb 12, 2020, 2:47 PM

    —-“A widespread misconception in much of psychology holds that as vertebrate animals evolved, ‘newer’ brain structures were added over existing ‘older’ brain structures” Your Brain Is Not an Onion with a Tiny Reptile Inside A widespread misconception in much of psychology holds that (1) as vertebrate animals evolved, “newer” brain structures were added over existing “older” brain structures and (2) these newer,….. “All vertebrates possess the same basic brain—and forebrain—regions. … [None] are evolutionarily newer in some mammals than others. … even the prefrontal cortex, a region associated with reason and action planning, is not a uniquely human structure.”— Robin Hanson @robinhanson

    [A] statement without meaning – there’s only one cell type in the nervous system, three subtypes, but almost countless variation that all functional regions in the brain evolved from. So what? Does that mean we can’t demarcate dramatic evolutionary leaps in function by organism? To say that a fish is sentient and aware is true. To say it is conscious is to demand we define the spectrum of predictive models capable for the organism, and its ability to react vs choose vs reason vs calculate transformations of state vs calculate cooperation. So if the point is to clarify that the brain is just a collection of similar cells in various forms of organization and that for all intents and purposes our brain is an outgrowth of our consciousness (modeling of our body and movement in space) yes. To equate sentience (feeling of changes in state), and awareness (of change in state of environment) and semi-consciousness (prediction of future states and possible reactions), consciousness (prediction of future permutations of state), to transformations of state is a leap. If the question is ‘who is the observer’ (which I suspect is the origin of most problems in philosophy and cognitive science) it’s memory of the last few memories recursively processed as a stream of changes in model in the hippocampal region. Consciousness is a verb not a noun. Why do I care? No more woo woo in cognitive science please. If you can’t pass the mirror test, the gesture test, sympathy test (cooperation), demonstrate natural operational grammar (language), and create multi-part tools, or enter into agreement (consent) then you’re far behind. The difference between the engine of a 3d video game and the human brain turns out to be terrifyingly small. We just do everything in massive parallel and at a much lower voltage and current because of it, and we do the prediction as well as the construction.

  • No More Woo Woo in Cognitive Science Please

    Feb 12, 2020, 2:47 PM

    —-“A widespread misconception in much of psychology holds that as vertebrate animals evolved, ‘newer’ brain structures were added over existing ‘older’ brain structures” Your Brain Is Not an Onion with a Tiny Reptile Inside A widespread misconception in much of psychology holds that (1) as vertebrate animals evolved, “newer” brain structures were added over existing “older” brain structures and (2) these newer,….. “All vertebrates possess the same basic brain—and forebrain—regions. … [None] are evolutionarily newer in some mammals than others. … even the prefrontal cortex, a region associated with reason and action planning, is not a uniquely human structure.”— Robin Hanson @robinhanson

    [A] statement without meaning – there’s only one cell type in the nervous system, three subtypes, but almost countless variation that all functional regions in the brain evolved from. So what? Does that mean we can’t demarcate dramatic evolutionary leaps in function by organism? To say that a fish is sentient and aware is true. To say it is conscious is to demand we define the spectrum of predictive models capable for the organism, and its ability to react vs choose vs reason vs calculate transformations of state vs calculate cooperation. So if the point is to clarify that the brain is just a collection of similar cells in various forms of organization and that for all intents and purposes our brain is an outgrowth of our consciousness (modeling of our body and movement in space) yes. To equate sentience (feeling of changes in state), and awareness (of change in state of environment) and semi-consciousness (prediction of future states and possible reactions), consciousness (prediction of future permutations of state), to transformations of state is a leap. If the question is ‘who is the observer’ (which I suspect is the origin of most problems in philosophy and cognitive science) it’s memory of the last few memories recursively processed as a stream of changes in model in the hippocampal region. Consciousness is a verb not a noun. Why do I care? No more woo woo in cognitive science please. If you can’t pass the mirror test, the gesture test, sympathy test (cooperation), demonstrate natural operational grammar (language), and create multi-part tools, or enter into agreement (consent) then you’re far behind. The difference between the engine of a 3d video game and the human brain turns out to be terrifyingly small. We just do everything in massive parallel and at a much lower voltage and current because of it, and we do the prediction as well as the construction.

  • The Celler Cancer

    Feb 13, 2020, 9:52 AM

    —“(((Emanuel Celler))) fought the 1924 Act and then spent his whole career trying to get it overturned.”—Matt LawIor

  • The Celler Cancer

    Feb 13, 2020, 9:52 AM

    —“(((Emanuel Celler))) fought the 1924 Act and then spent his whole career trying to get it overturned.”—Matt LawIor

  • Sovereignty (Natural Law) vs Submission (Theology)

    —“…The concept of “obeying the commandments gives ultimate freedom” was the biggest oxymoron to me for most of my life. I have my merits, it should be good enough… Maybe this is just my inner /r, I have found a level of peace as I accepted my place in the machinery of life.”—Anne Summers

    [I]t gives people an easy way of avoiding conflict over status and position so that they can work in harmony by simple rules. We just use sovereignty in western civ (scientific and legal) and take accountability for our actions, and supernaturalists use an excuse NOT to take accountability for their actions. In other words, sovereignty for the strong, and submission for the weak.

  • Sovereignty (Natural Law) vs Submission (Theology)

    —“…The concept of “obeying the commandments gives ultimate freedom” was the biggest oxymoron to me for most of my life. I have my merits, it should be good enough… Maybe this is just my inner /r, I have found a level of peace as I accepted my place in the machinery of life.”—Anne Summers

    [I]t gives people an easy way of avoiding conflict over status and position so that they can work in harmony by simple rules. We just use sovereignty in western civ (scientific and legal) and take accountability for our actions, and supernaturalists use an excuse NOT to take accountability for their actions. In other words, sovereignty for the strong, and submission for the weak.

  • Women using P Against GSRRM

    Feb 13, 2020, 2:38 PM by James Dmitro Makienko [M]y wife is an aspie, and she is in a fashion industry, which is rife with GSRRM. She tried everything, until she “read Doolittle” (c) and learned some P-concepts. Mainly she uses a meta-term “manipulation” as a catch-all for GSRRM and other feminine cognition shit they use. She calls them out on manipulation. They usually respond with more GSRRM. Then she says “you are using ORRGSM+M(manipulation) to manipulate me into going against my interests, and I am not falling for it”. Then they try it again. She repeats herself and adds “and since you use manipulation, instead of logic and reason, you are a bad person, with a dark agenda, who is trying to take me for a fool, but I am not falling for it”. She keeps repeating it until manipulators run away – when you expose them they run out of options they can use. She also read up on dark triad traits on manipulative behaviors of sociopaths and narcissists and found things like “Framing” – (“if you are a good girl/christian/X you will do Y and go against your interests to serve my interests”) which are also used with GSRRM. Calmly exposing manipulative tactics with a precisely defined technical term works for her to disarm those who use GSRRM.