Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • Is There a Place for The Left?

    September 18th, 2018 12:18 PM IS THERE A PLACE FOR THE LEFT?

    —“Under your natural law, Is there a place for the left?”—

    [T]here is a place for EXCHANGE between anyone, but predation and parasitism by no one. It’s not true that left wingers invent more than right. It’s true that leftists and rightists innovate in different areas: left consumption and release of normative constraint vs right order and release of existential constraints. I mean, I have absurd orderliness, and I still was voted most likely to succeed as a practicing artist by the faculty two years in a row. creativity occurs across the spectrum, but it’s creativity in WHAT? There is a place for everyone, there is just no place for parasitism and the left innovates means of parasitism and consumption to obtain its freedom from the right, and the right innovations suppression of parasitism and consumption in order to obtain its freedom from the left. The left and the feminine mind it evolved from cannot compete so it engages in rents, parasitism and predation to obtain what they see as proportionality independent of merit, and what we see as proportionality by merit. They have lower agency. They are not fully human. And this is why we must separate if possible, so that we can continue to speciate by proportionality: whether equalitarian and irreciprocal, or meritocratic and reciprocal. REVOLT, SEPARATE, PROSPER, SPECIATE. They will devolve and we will evolve and leave them behind.

  • September 18th, 2018 3:55 PM —“Are the homeless sleeping in your Starbucks aga

    September 18th, 2018 3:55 PM

    —“Are the homeless sleeping in your Starbucks again, Curt? ;)”— Kevin Wu

    I dunno. I’ve been in Connecticut recently. You can’t tell the homeless, from the immigrants, from the underclass, from the laboring class, from the disenfranchised working class, so every starbucks looks like a homeless shelter that simply smells reasonably good. (humor)

  • Is There a Place for The Left?

    September 18th, 2018 12:18 PM IS THERE A PLACE FOR THE LEFT?

    —“Under your natural law, Is there a place for the left?”—

    [T]here is a place for EXCHANGE between anyone, but predation and parasitism by no one. It’s not true that left wingers invent more than right. It’s true that leftists and rightists innovate in different areas: left consumption and release of normative constraint vs right order and release of existential constraints. I mean, I have absurd orderliness, and I still was voted most likely to succeed as a practicing artist by the faculty two years in a row. creativity occurs across the spectrum, but it’s creativity in WHAT? There is a place for everyone, there is just no place for parasitism and the left innovates means of parasitism and consumption to obtain its freedom from the right, and the right innovations suppression of parasitism and consumption in order to obtain its freedom from the left. The left and the feminine mind it evolved from cannot compete so it engages in rents, parasitism and predation to obtain what they see as proportionality independent of merit, and what we see as proportionality by merit. They have lower agency. They are not fully human. And this is why we must separate if possible, so that we can continue to speciate by proportionality: whether equalitarian and irreciprocal, or meritocratic and reciprocal. REVOLT, SEPARATE, PROSPER, SPECIATE. They will devolve and we will evolve and leave them behind.

  • correct

    correct.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-17 03:42:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041532752963792896

    Reply addressees: @CenterRightHind

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041528714604015616

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041528714604015616

  • Position on Arranged Marriages?

    —“Are you in favor of arranged marriages? I am, but I would love to hear your take”— Erik Lukovsky

    [N]o, because I am not in favor of selling children into slavery for money which is what occurs all too often. What I prefer is veto of proposal on grounds of insufficient demonstration of compatibility and merit to produce a home, income, and support of children for those under a certain age. I am also in favor of parental monetary contribution to setting up a household and the near elimination of the marriage ‘celebration’ entirely, which has become an absurd debt with which to start a family. via-negativa in all things. There are too many malincentives at present: delayed childhood and its suppression of socialization and mating rituals. Delayed childhood and it’s suppression of work experience in the service of others, and work experience in the generation of trades. The deprivation of the young from income from labor such that they accumulate demand for consumption during the period where they wish to do the most exploration and signaling and mating rituals. The issue of credit to the young who then indebt themselves. the issue of debilitating student loans to the young who then further indebt themselves, the combination of which is to spend the most fertile years at play rather than familial production. The issue of housing interest such that it is almost impossible to pay for a home within the first generation of children, thereby freeing the parents to assist the next generation and save for retirement once the children are grown. The issue of high taxation such that two incomes are necessary for the production of a household, rather than a second income for the purpose of extra entertainment and socialization. Other people’s engagement is the optimum consumer good. The problem is sortition such that we can engage peers, and separate from inhibitors to our socialization.

  • Position on Arranged Marriages?

    —“Are you in favor of arranged marriages? I am, but I would love to hear your take”— Erik Lukovsky

    [N]o, because I am not in favor of selling children into slavery for money which is what occurs all too often. What I prefer is veto of proposal on grounds of insufficient demonstration of compatibility and merit to produce a home, income, and support of children for those under a certain age. I am also in favor of parental monetary contribution to setting up a household and the near elimination of the marriage ‘celebration’ entirely, which has become an absurd debt with which to start a family. via-negativa in all things. There are too many malincentives at present: delayed childhood and its suppression of socialization and mating rituals. Delayed childhood and it’s suppression of work experience in the service of others, and work experience in the generation of trades. The deprivation of the young from income from labor such that they accumulate demand for consumption during the period where they wish to do the most exploration and signaling and mating rituals. The issue of credit to the young who then indebt themselves. the issue of debilitating student loans to the young who then further indebt themselves, the combination of which is to spend the most fertile years at play rather than familial production. The issue of housing interest such that it is almost impossible to pay for a home within the first generation of children, thereby freeing the parents to assist the next generation and save for retirement once the children are grown. The issue of high taxation such that two incomes are necessary for the production of a household, rather than a second income for the purpose of extra entertainment and socialization. Other people’s engagement is the optimum consumer good. The problem is sortition such that we can engage peers, and separate from inhibitors to our socialization.

  • Evil

    –“I understood it to mean “we invented the concept of God’s as our highest ideals”.—Carl Onni

    [Y]ou mean authoritarianism and monopoly rather than as in history, an extended family of various traits relying on various archetypes. It is very easy to convince people that what they do is good. It is very hard to show them that what they deem good is bad. Principally because their intuitions have been trained by deception and ritual, because there was no means of training them by reason and practice. No cult survives falsification by science, and no good of cults cannot be produced by training. There are only two religions that are not evil: stoicism and shintoism, with original buddhism simply a pre-scientific attempt (as in philosophy vs science) to produce an insular stoicism; where stoicism sought to produce a civic discipline.

  • Evil

    –“I understood it to mean “we invented the concept of God’s as our highest ideals”.—Carl Onni

    [Y]ou mean authoritarianism and monopoly rather than as in history, an extended family of various traits relying on various archetypes. It is very easy to convince people that what they do is good. It is very hard to show them that what they deem good is bad. Principally because their intuitions have been trained by deception and ritual, because there was no means of training them by reason and practice. No cult survives falsification by science, and no good of cults cannot be produced by training. There are only two religions that are not evil: stoicism and shintoism, with original buddhism simply a pre-scientific attempt (as in philosophy vs science) to produce an insular stoicism; where stoicism sought to produce a civic discipline.

  • “Are you in favor of arranged marriages? I am, but I would love to hear your tak

    —“Are you in favor of arranged marriages? I am, but I would love to hear your take”— Erik Lukovsky

    Um. No, because I am not in favor of selling children into slavery for money which is what occurs all too often.

    What I prefer is veto of proposal on grounds of insufficient demonstration of compatibility and merit to produce a home, income, and support of children for those under a certain age.

    I am also in favor of parental monetary contribution to setting up a household and the near elimination of the marriage ‘celebration’ entirely, which has become an absurd debt with which to start a family.

    via-negativa in all things.

    There are too many malincentives at present: delayed childhood and its suppression of socialization and mating rituals.

    Delayed childhood and it’s suppression of work experience in the service of others, and work experience in the generation of trades.

    The deprivation of the young from income from labor such that they accumulate demand for consumption during the period where they wish to do the most exploration and signaling and mating rituals.

    The issue of credit to the young who then indebt themselves. the issue of debilitating student loans to the young who then further indebt themselves, the combination of which is to spend the most fertile years at play rather than familial production.

    The issue of housing interest such that it is almost impossible to pay for a home within the first generation of children, thereby freeing the parents to assist the next generation and save for retirement once the children are grown.

    The issue of high taxation such that two incomes are necessary for the production of a household, rather than a second income for the purpose of extra entertainment and socialization.

    Other people’s engagement is the optimum consumer good. The problem is sortition such that we can engage peers, and separate from inhibitors to our socialization.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-16 11:13:00 UTC

  • “I understood it to mean “we invented the concept of God’s as our highest ideals

    —“I understood it to mean “we invented the concept of God’s as our highest ideals”.—Carl Onni

    You mean authoritarianism and monopoly rather than as in history, an extended family of various traits relying on various archetypes.

    It is very easy to convince people that what they do is good. It is very hard to show them that what they deem good is bad. Principally because their intuitions have been trained by deception and ritual, because there was no means of training them by reason and practice.

    No cult survives falsification by science, and no good of cults cannot be produced by training. There are only two religions that are not evil: stoicism and shintoism, with original buddhism simply a pre-scientific attempt (as in philosophy vs science) to produce an insular stoicism; where stoicism sought to produce a civic discipline.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-16 10:57:00 UTC