Form: Reply

  • THE FUTURE OF CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ASIANS —“Ask one question what would be the

    THE FUTURE OF CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ASIANS

    —“Ask one question what would be the future of central Asian and south asians?”— Waqas Ahmad

    I would say it is neither the east’s or the west’s responsibility to domesticate the desert, steppe and tundra peoples. That our attempts have been a tragic failure.

    Our attempts at colonization only succeeded in places where we engaged in extermination. Everywhere we have tried to modernize the desert, steppe, and tundra people has failed.

    That the desert steppe and tundra people have been disastrous for eastern, western, and subsaharan civilizations.

    That our attempts to modernize the southeast asians might have been successful if not for the superior success of islam with the underclasses (low iq peoples).

    That the semitic(arab) peoples (low iq peoples) have destroyed and consumed the north african(indo-iranian), greek (iranian-anatolian-european), anatolian (indo-iranian), persian (indo-iranian), indus (dravidian-indo-iranian) civilizations, and the mongols and turks have destroyed the kievan rus, russian, south-slavic civilizations.

    And that china’s (successful) strategy of walling off, and the roman (failed) strategy of walling off, and internalizing (Autarkic economy) was the right one for both.

    So I think it is not possible to Rule, to Domesticate peoples who have not been forced to go thru their own agrarian phase. And the best strategy for our self defense is to literally ‘wall them off’ so they can do us no more harm.

    “White Man’s Burden” was a failure. The chinese were right. We were wrong. The only way to expand into genetically inferior (low Iq) territories is extermination. Since extermination is no longer in our ethical limits, the only alternative is ‘walling them off’.

    (India is not just a people or country but a continent. but like south america, the number of ‘capable’ and moral is dwarfed by the number of the not. Without birth control or plague india has a long road. But can survive.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 10:06:00 UTC

  • TRANSHUMANISM I have no idea what that means, but if you mean ‘increasing rates

    TRANSHUMANISM

    I have no idea what that means, but if you mean ‘increasing rates of reproduction of demonstrably superior genetic expressions, and decreasing rates of reproduction of demonstrably inferior genetic expressions’ then I understand that.

    If you mean hubristic attempts to create superior genetic combinations rather than remove failed genetic combinations I think you’re either an idiot or dangerous or both.

    If in addition you mean device-augmentation on the lines of wearing glasses and earplugs that overlay reality and dramatically increase our information availability, or suits that augment our physical abilities, then I understand that.

    If you mean dependency-adaptation to permanent mechanical augmentation then I think you’re both mentally disturbed and dangerous.

    If you mean incrementally adding (a) superior lactose processing, (b) longer telomeres, (c) heart and lung capacity, (d) increasing white matter capacity, (e) immune and inflammatory system correction and such, even if it means experimenting on human genomes with pruned brains, then I think that is ok.

    ‘Wet’ systems are superior to ‘Dry’ systems. Humans are incredibly energy efficient creatures given their size, speed, adaptability, and processing power. I can see the value of both purely wet and purely dry systems. But it is very hard to imagine that the consequences are not terrible if we do not seek self replication of wet systems in planetary and dry systems in interplanetary systems, and if we avoid at all costs the interdependence of the two. Life goes on. making it more fragile is not helping it.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 09:35:00 UTC

  • Is it me, or do they all look like the parade of undesirable, friendless, datele

    Is it me, or do they all look like the parade of undesirable, friendless, dateless losers you went to school and university with?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 20:43:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880527062854914049

    Reply addressees: @AdamShawNY @nytimes

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880506172348002304


    IN REPLY TO:

    @AdamShawNY

    .@nytimes reporters chanting “no editors, no peace” during walkout protest over cuts. https://t.co/2xaNTbbeJ3

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880506172348002304

  • ABSOLUTELY TRUE OR TRUE? —“Is the term ‘absolutely true’ necessary? Or, is the

    ABSOLUTELY TRUE OR TRUE?

    —“Is the term ‘absolutely true’ necessary? Or, is the use of ‘absolutely’ extraneous?”– A Friend

    Great Question.

    Well, it’s extraneous in fact among professionals. But the problem is we use ‘true’ in the vernacular as a general category conflating all sorts of claims (including ‘true for me’ – which is absurd).

    So when I hear it I understand that you mean “Truth Proper” as in “analytic truth” in logic and mathematics, “Ideal Truth” when in the context of rational statements, and “Truthful” when in the context of the physical sciences.

    And I suspect most people who have some skill in this field would do the same if you gave them a survey, and asked “if I say the words Absolutely True’ does that mean (a, b, c, d).” And if you asked that question in giving a statement that conveyed the context I’m pretty sure again that they would choose the right ‘true’ accordingly.

    I think this is the right answer. It is unnecessary (and possibly confusing) when talking both in context, and to professionals in each discipline.

    The problem is that we often speak in audiences that do not know the difference in parsimony between analytic, ideal, and scientific truth. And we have some in our audiences that live under the postmodern influence that ‘what works’ to achieve my ends is ‘true’.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 16:58:00 UTC

  • Excellent!!!

    Excellent!!!


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 11:07:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880382155318333440

    Reply addressees: @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880291333453119488


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartianHoplite

    Holy shit. @curtdoolittle Have you seen this?
    https://t.co/WQ1poDatHJ

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880291333453119488

  • Context please. what will people retaliate against REGARDLESS of what you want o

    Context please. what will people retaliate against REGARDLESS of what you want or agree to. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-25 14:02:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878976603304468480

    Reply addressees: @Eric_Eibergen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878968805128638465


    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/878968805128638465

  • Tell me, tell me, tell me. 😉

    Tell me, tell me, tell me. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 12:09:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878585947293720576

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/878536342845640704


    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/878536342845640704

  • Aiden P Gregg If you take a thing, do you *rightfully* own it? Al Freeman Isn’t

    Aiden P Gregg

    If you take a thing, do you *rightfully* own it?

    Al Freeman

    Isn’t Rightfully an indefinable concept?

    Curt Doolittle

    Under natural law of reciprocity is absolutely definable.

    But we must be cooperating for rightful to have meaning.

    If we are not cooperating moral questions do not yet exist

    Al Freeman

    So rightfully ownership can exist, but only applies within limits of established reciprocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 21:45:00 UTC

  • “Aren’t you implicitly conflating the hard sciences with computer programming? I

    —“Aren’t you implicitly conflating the hard sciences with computer programming? It seems so. For you the sciences at hand are absolutely sufficient for every decision making, which (I assume, sorry) is boiling down to the Boolean algebra.”—Igor Rogov

    I’m saying that there is only one ‘science’: truth telling, and that the scientific method, if completed (via testimonialism) unifies science, philosophy, law, and evolutionary biology.

    properties > category > sets > operations > sequential operations > externalities from sequential operations > macro-patterns from externalities.

    And that while computers can COMPUTE algorithms using TYPES, humans can CALCULATE ‘routes’ using CATEGORIES


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 08:40:00 UTC

  • (how many times i gotta say it. Please don’t include me in your anger-speech. Lo

    (how many times i gotta say it. Please don’t include me in your anger-speech. Look in the mirror. You, your parents, your grandparents, your relatives, their friends, that is who is responsible for our current state. It is trivially easy to defend against abrahamism whether christian jewish or islamic. If you don’t, then you’ve given the scorpion a ride you stupid frog. The only way to defeat it, is to kill it first.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 14:21:00 UTC