(Um. aspies who self-gravitate whine; aspies who try to integrate don’t. So yeah, you have to find groups where they try to integrate – not isolate. You want people that are detached without being socially incompetent and rejected. )
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 20:49:00 UTC
THE OTHER UNNAMED GENDER-SPECIFIC COGNITIVE BIAS
(response)
How long have you been following me? Because if you don’t know when and why I use the imperative form, it cant be long.
I don’t have a name for your particular form of “disapproval by shaming” – as distinct from an appropriate argument against falsehood – but it is strangely a behavior as gender-specific as NAXALT.
I should name it.
Agency requires we can separate the preferable, from the good, from the true. And address each accordingly as a personal preference, shared preference, or truth independent of preference or good.
Whatever we call it, it’s one of the gender-specific cognitive biases that conflates preference, good, and truth, such that there is no distinction between the preferable, the presumption of knowledge of the good and the disregard for the true.
Using this form of disapproval means one lacks Agency. It means that one is not fully human, but still a mammal lacking reason, but able to speak – even if not sensibly.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 19:39:00 UTC
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/how-white-women-use-strategic-tears-to-avoid-accountability???
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 19:22:00 UTC
—“Do you believe in The Big Bang and other ‘Nihilistic’ science fiction”— a silly person
(putting aside the fraudulence of that statement, lol…)
I don’t ‘believe’ in anything as you understand that term. I maintain a collection of possibilities that are as yet unsolved, a set I suspect are solved, and a set of things I cannot yet refute.
I’m a scientist. My conceptual framework is via-negative (survival) or what you might consider ‘darwinian’. And all knowledge is forever contingent.
As I understand it and I think I understand it as well as anyone living, we can describe what we can see, and we cannot describe what we can’t, and there is a lot we can’t, and the remaining problems we can solve in what we see, appear by all accounts to be determined by what we cannot see.
Of the known options the idea of collection of bubbles (universes) holds the highest explanatory power, with the least demand for that which violates what we now of geometry.
My value judgement of the structure of the universe has no influence over the truth or falsehood of it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 15:51:00 UTC
NEVER ALLOW ELITES TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE
—“Betrayal can never be forgiven. We can breed new elites. It’ll take time. But even in the meantime we’ll be stronger without treacherous elites than with them. And even with them we’re very nearly strong enough. Some mistakes, you don’t get to make twice.”— Ely Harman
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 15:15:00 UTC
—“Short busses full of millenials licking postmodern windows”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 15:14:00 UTC
THE DEMAND FOR A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE
—“Even a truth by testimony will not defend against a falsehood by sophistry for the emotional and mentally ill equipped. Thus the necessity for the monopoly on violence.”—Brandon Smith
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 15:11:00 UTC
The vast majority of Women try to reduce or eliminate social threats, so they conform to whatever power they perceive. It’s not rational from a male perspective because if there is an external threat women will rapidly and easily undermine the men (their host).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 15:01:00 UTC
In the battles of sophisms between sophists the articulate wins. that’s the problem: we want truth to win.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 14:43:00 UTC
You can use sophism to state a truth or sophism to state a falsehood. By using sophism to state a truth you have done nothing to insure that truth against defeat by sophisms that are false.
(yes, I mean you, jordan peterson, et al.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 14:42:00 UTC