https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/separate-nyc-from-upstate-and-central-ny?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1586044210&utm_campaign&utm_source=facebook&share=ae2f5dcb-aa02-4b07-8bf4-13640170ed1cUpdated Apr 6, 2020, 11:39 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 11:39:00 UTC
READ.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 11:38:00 UTC
READ.Updated Apr 6, 2020, 11:38 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 11:38:00 UTC
FED ACCUSERS ARE PROTECTING THEIR MALINVESTMENTS AND RESISTING NEW INVESTMENTS
by John Mark
My standard response to the fed-post accusation is to:
a) mock anyone who says using 2A for its primary intended purpose is “bad” (were the founding fathers “feds”? lmao), and;
b) demand they produce and articulate a solution: “What is your plan for when the Right can’t win any more elections?”
Often these groups/individuals that countersignal are either consciously or subconsciously trying to hold on to their “market share” of right-wing audience – they have invested significantly in what they are doing, and many people even on the dissident right are still hoping in vain that there is some other way to win without force.
P kinda makes everybody else look bad and threatens to make them irrelevant because we are a) describing the situation with brutal honesty (force or at least show of force will be necessary) while they are not, and b) P is so stunningly well thought out, with such thorough coverage and breakthrough insight both in explanatory power and recommended solutions, that it is impossible for anyone else on the Right to compete with. (Simply put, no other group has Curt on their team.)
P also requires a decent amount of time investment to understand well enough to say “yeah, I get how this could work”. And time is something leaders have very little of – I have very limited time to invest in learning details about what other leaders/movements/packs are doing.
We are also slaying the sacred cows of libertarianism/ancap etc., and correcting a bunch of failed strategies all around. (For example, we say persuasion & voting can’t be the Right’s primary strategy – but most groups on the Right are built around that primary strategy.)
All this results in the leaders of other “packs” sometimes having an initial negative reaction toward us.
One way to mitigate this without compromising on the truth, may be to invite people like this on my show and genuinely try to promote them (cuz many of them are doing great work in many ways), and then also ask them what they think of our basic solution proposals (policies etc, not in-depth P stuff), and have that discussion.
Propertarians are the adults in the room on the Right. And we’re figuring out how to deal with/work with the other “packs”.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 11:37:00 UTC
Autism Memories.
Test Results. Standardized. Teacher. Man.
“Great. You only got one wrong!”
Me: “I didn’t get any wrong”
(scowl) “this one…”
Me: (read. look at answers.) “You can’t know that from the information in the question.”
“How can you say that? These are made by…”
Me: “It doesn’t matter, You can’t know that from the information in the question. I answered correctly.” (I consider the conversation settled, because it’s so obvious.).
Him: (puzzled) (he puts the folder away) (They had no idea what to do with us.)
(I continue my youth of wondering how the fk adults don’t get us all killed, and how it’s unbelievable anything works at all, and I try to help them when I can, or at least not create too man problems, because I have no idea what to do if they screw up even worse and I”m stuck with these kids that aren’t any better than barn animals.)
I was completely oblivious.
It’s hysterical.
I love aspies.
I would hug that ‘me’ if I was that teacher today.
it’s just delayed social development.
And in retrospect it’s funny.
At the time it was annoying.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 21:41:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/92216726_249755586422602_3662017875394166784_o_249755583089269.jpg
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 16:41:00 UTC
EXAMPLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR VIOLATING P-LAW OF SPEECH
—“Well, I’ve got a friend who’s really into manufacturing custom soaps. Let’s say she understates her soap expenses in a public space, because she’s embarrassed.”—
That’s In public, but not to the public, ad not about matters public. In other words no attempt to use the coercive powers of government nor to undermine the law limiting them, nor to pollute the informational commons, upon which the people depend.
1) not regular speech, but political speech: in public to the public in matters public.
2) I would expect lawyers to handle those in our existing court system, although I have recommended specialization of the court system, similar to the european court system where family, criminal, private, and public suits are separated.
3) Lawyers and judges and court officials are just as prosecutable under P-law as anyone else. So I expect that to shake up the industry.
Marxists, postmodernists, feminists, etc, go to jail.
Silly people are just silly.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 16:19:00 UTC
WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM: “THE LAW”
“The Natural Law of European Peoples”: A fully commensurable system of measurement across all disciplines that tests for reciprocity in display, word (truth) and deed (action); the extension of the logic of the physical sciences (realism, naturalism, equilibration) to the psychological(individual) and social(group) sciences using economic terms (acquisition, cooperation, reciprocity); thereby completing the scientific method (falsification of all dimensions possible human cognition); and thereby completing the Aristotelian program; and thereby providing the explanation for the success of western civilization under that program: sovereignty, reciprocity, and truth – and the markets that result from their universal enforcement, and the evolutionary velocity (adaptation, innovation) that results from those markets.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 14:30:00 UTC
MORAL DEFENSE OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS
by Tim Kay (wow. well done)
Making an argument is a service to the intellectual commons (or to put it better, it’s at least not imposing a cost on the commons). Failure to do so imposes a cost of maintaining the intellectual commons onto others.
Reciprocity demands mutual norm maintenance, which is violated by GSRRM. The reason GSRRM is permissible in self-defence, and commons-defence, is that it is a) reciprocal, but more importantly b) like violence, no means of achieving one’s ends is off the table, but it must be directed responsibly.
You can’t extirpate GSRRM anymore than you can violence (working with nature not against) but you can make a proportional response which returns the favour of costs against reputation. Individuals of this type whose arguments (such that they are) amount to ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use GSRRM yourself’ need to understand the answer is: yes, sort of.
I retain all means necessary to defend myself and the commons, whether it be shaming, or violence.
In light of the point about violence one may then say ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use violence’ and we can better see the nature of that statement.
I say: no, we want a more technical reason NOT to use it.
Because using it is the default. Why should I not use all means necessary in self-defence, when you’re effectively stealing from me and others?
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 14:05:00 UTC
(me: “Did you hide my power cable again?”
little old lady: (blank stare)
me: (finding it) “Why do you get so much joy out of exasperating me?”
little old lady: “Revenge. .. It’s sweet!”)
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 13:17:00 UTC