by Shannon Constantine
Personally I’d like to see the other 30% devote their talents to improving womankind. The problem with feminism is that it succeeded in improving women’s lot in life, without actually improving women.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-13 11:06:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1183338160404738048
by Shannon Constantine
Personally I’d like to see the other 30% devote their talents to improving womankind. The problem with feminism is that it succeeded in improving women’s lot in life, without actually improving women.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-13 07:06:00 UTC
by Alain Dwight
All money is a share in a particular economy. Having money generated by a predefined, publicly visible algorithm might be a step closer to rule of law in finance, but it’s not a full accounting rule of law for finance and it doesn’t magically make the economy it represents more valuable.
To raise the value of shares, rule of law still needs to be applied and enforced separately, at which point crypto’s only advantage (I know of) would be transactions that are marginally more efficient (if true), which would be a fringe benefit, not a revolutionary shift.
You can write software to help expose, cut out, and compete with the parasites but that’s going to hit a hard limit, unless you address the underlying issue (a comprehensive plan to replace parasitic control of law w/ rule of law and high trust).
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-13 06:59:00 UTC
—“Unlike the left which reduces everyone to their lowest common denominator, we establish our greatest common denominators”—Micah Pezdirtz
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 21:11:00 UTC
—“Sophism is the common form of discourse now. It’s incredible to watch the stimulus (P) create the response (dissonance). It’s entirely appropriate.”—Benny Burke
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 20:57:00 UTC
WE AREN’T ENEMIES, NOT IN THE LEAST, UNITED BY NATURAL LAW
—“No, neither of us advocates forcing people to believe anything. All we demand is that due diligence against error, bias and deceit be made in all speech to public (commercial, academic, political etc.). All this means for Christians is to either keep their faith a private matter or, if they feel the need to speak about matters of faith to public, to do so only as a matter of faith, with no pretense of speaking an objective truth. … We’re not enemies, not in the slightest. We just have to agree that the natural law is what unites us.”– Martin Štěpán
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 20:32:00 UTC
—“I’ve done deep dives into feel-of-sophy… I’d say there are two useful areas to explore which I’ve found indispensable… the history of the philosophy of science and the history of the battle between platonists and aristotelians.”— Bill Joslin
(CD: the rest is nonsense. )
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 19:20:00 UTC
—” might have done better by reading the summaries of the major philosophers first instead of going through their complete works one by one. Still, I’m going through them pretty fast.”— Martin Štěpán
I don’t really recommend philosophy, but science and economics instead. That said, myself I just read the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. And most of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and I don’t know how many summaries of the works of philosophers before I ‘bothered’ with the source material. And even then, except for starting with aristotle and plato like everyone else, I worked backwards from the present to the past. Because it’s readily apparent from that process what’s worth reading and what’s drivel.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 17:47:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrZ33sR3N0Qby Martin Štěpán
Insight gained while watching this (albeit not directly mentioned here).
Women used to be more religious and more conservative as a result. This is because they’re more inclined towards empathizing on the empathy-systems spectrum (with extremes being schizophrenia and autism). As a result, they attribute intention to where none is present and consider emergent properties of systems a result of the will of God.
What happens when you take that away and there are these emergent properties of nature left to explain, such as wage-gap, men at all the top positions, all the different outcomes arising from different groups possessing different traits and so on?Updated Oct 12, 2019, 10:43 AM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 10:43:00 UTC
WHAT HONEST ANARCHISTS ARE GRASPING FOR: RULE OF LAW
Alain Dwight
Anarchy is a rhetorical illusion, it doesn’t exist in reality.
There is no rule without rulers, there are no active nouns (rules) without actors implementing them (rulers). Every method of interaction has rules that are set and enforced by rulers.
We want rule of law (suppressing free-riding of all forms regardless of rank/class) rather than discretionary rule (cherry picked application), and this is what honest anarchists are grasping for.
The rest are essentially libertarians peddling the non aggression principle, which amounts to advocacy for discretionary rule because only some impositions of costs are counted while others are ignored.
Most often, imposing costs by way of invading someone’s territory or subverting their social norms is permitted and so retaliation against such actions is considered “initiating aggression” while the initial imposition is not.
It’s a great recipe for demanding access to low corruption commons and then calling it aggression if there are any demands or conditions required in terms of sharing the cost to construct and maintain the commons. It’s coerced association – ghetto ethics.
NAP and anarchism generally permits blackmail too.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-11 21:50:00 UTC