Source: Facebook

  • Curt Doolittle Um. Fascism = Monopoly. Everyone wants a monopoly – whether left

    Curt Doolittle Um. Fascism = Monopoly. Everyone wants a monopoly – whether left right or center. THe west however rose at its unprecedented pace in the ancient and modern worlds, under tripartism and markets for cooperation, while maintaining underclass eugenics (suppression). So basically fascism won. The ‘examples’ being set for the rest of the world are china, russia and saudi arabia – a trend in the research that was identified in the 90’s. Democracy in the 19th and 20th and the French Revolution’s counter-empiricism will be, as in the ancient world, remembered as nothing more than a revolt made possible by temporary excesses in income made possible by european technological superiority and the use of it in colonization. In less than a century that competitive advantage (capital) has been spent down, and the world is dividing again into large caste systems (india, south america, the muslim world) and nationalisms (china, japan, south korea). With the west by fully accidental means, choosing to follow india, south america, and the levant, into permanent class warfare.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 10:27:00 UTC

  • “Nobody is out of the gene pool, unless they don’t reproduce.”— Apparently you

    —“Nobody is out of the gene pool, unless they don’t reproduce.”—

    Apparently you don’t understand the difference between pools(ponds, lakes), rivers, and oceans?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 10:19:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY 10 Law, 20 History 30 Science 40 Philosophy 50 Mythology (Literatur

    DECIDABILITY

    10 Law,

    20 History

    30 Science

    40 Philosophy

    50 Mythology (Literature)

    60 Religion

    70 GOTO: 10


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 10:18:00 UTC

  • “The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English i

    —“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.” —James Nicoll


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 10:11:00 UTC

  • MORE ON ENGLISH VS GERMAN Q: What would English look like if it followed the gra

    MORE ON ENGLISH VS GERMAN

    Q: What would English look like if it followed the grammar of German?

    by Vlad Andreev (From Quora)

    Have you geheard, we should to the German Grammar overswitch? That have i already yesterday gemade. The German Grammar could, itself tofirst, strange sound, but you will perhaps discover that it not so difficult is. It is yes only a Matter of Wordorder… wait but. Have i “geheard” gesaid? I estimate once, that there also other Factors be could.

    Firstens, the Verbs. The Present Perfect in English is not the same as the Perfekt Timeform on German. On German, corresponds she to the Simple Past on English, in the last Years becomes but also increasingly employed in order all past Forms to indicate. The perfective Aspect, on German, is with the Gerundform geformed. So, now say we Things so like “gefound” and “geshopped” and “atgelooked”.

    Wait, “atgelooked”? Right. Whereas on the old Language, we Things “looked at”, now we Things “atlook”. This is a separable Verb, so the Gerundmarker becomes in the Word insidegeinserted.

    Secondens, the Nouns. Each has a grammatical Gender, and it must with the Pronouns match in anaphoric Situations (in this Answer, i want it to avoid, new Morphemes to withupcome, or from the Old English to borrow: so it’s called the Phrase, not þēos Phrase, is but still toreferred as she).

    If one with the Goal operates, new Words not towardstoadd, and the existing Inflections to reuse (“in the last Years”, not “in the lasts Years”, because the adjectival Plural unmarked in English is), then are we already more or less there. Some Littlehoods remain: Questionwordorder, Compoundnouns, certain Verbconjugationdetails and a few more, but in the Principle should you on Denglish communicate can. Much Luck!

    ANOTHER:

    English: Here is a little demonstration of what English would roughly feel like if it had essentially the same grammar as German. Word order would perhaps be the most difficult for modern English speakers trying to understand it, but word inflections would be particularly hard to produce correctly, especially because of noun genders.

    English with German grammar: Here is a little demonstration thereof, how English itself rough feelen would, if it in’t General thesame Grammar hadde, as German. That wordorder weré perhaps the biggest Understandingdifficulty for Speaker of’t modernen English, but Wordendings weren particular difficult correct to producen, before all because of thes’ gendern’s thes’ nounen’s.

    German with English grammar: Hier ist ein klein demonstration von wie Englisch ungefährlich würd fühl, wenn es hatte wesentlichlich de selb grammatik wie Deutsch. Wortfolge war vielleicht de meist schwierig für modern Englisch sprechers versuchend zu verstehen es, aber wort endungs würd sein besonders schwer zu reproduzier richtiglich, vor all wegen von substantiv geschlechts.

    German: Hier ist eine kleine Demonstration davon, wie sich Englisch ungefähr anfühlen würde, wenn es im Wesentlichen dieselbe Grammatik hätte, wie Deutsch. Die Wortstellung wäre vielleicht die größte Verständnisschwierigkeit für Sprecher des modernen Englisch, aber Wortendungen wären besonders schwer richtig zu reproduzieren, vor allem wegen der Geschlechter der Substantive.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 09:54:00 UTC

  • A market for cults is one thing (those who need them). A requirement for cults i

    A market for cults is one thing (those who need them). A requirement for cults is another (forcing those who do not). A monopoly cult is yet another (forcing a monopoly upon those who would choose differently, and those who would choose to do without).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 09:20:00 UTC

  • VOXDAY’S NEOLOGISMS OF SCIENCE, THEIR EXPLANATIONS, AND MINOR CORRECTIONS. —“t

    VOXDAY’S NEOLOGISMS OF SCIENCE, THEIR EXPLANATIONS, AND MINOR CORRECTIONS.

    —“the great irony is that scientistry now stands condemned by its beloved scientodific metric. The New Atheists reasoned that religious faith must be false on the basis of presuming the eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence to the contrary being false, but now we actually know, we do not merely reason, that it is faith in science that is false due to irreproducibility.”—

    Well, that just means people are NOT in fact practicing science, but pseudoscience. Under falsificationism, we can’t claim something is true until we can’t possibly find a way for it to be false. All pseudoscience works by justification instead “it’s true because of x”, or it “would lead us to the conclusion x because of y”. Physicists, materials scientists(engineers), chemists, and most molecular biologists do in fact practice science. But it’s rather obvious that philosophers, sociologists and psychologists, and to a lesser degree economists, practice pseudoscience. ALthough I should point out that economists are not in fact in the pursuit of truth but utility, and as such largely engage in selection bias (cherry picking). And we can test this by the correlation between political intuitions, and subdiscipline self selection.

    For those that do not understand the neologism (new terminology)

    Scientody: the process (the method)

    Scientage: the knowledge base

    Scientistry: the profession

    —“The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific”—

    Given my love for deflationary language I sort of approve, although for my purposes I don’t know if I’ll switch from using “Scientific Method” to “Scientody” quite yet.

    As for the Alt Right’s Scientific bias, the criteria a,b,c, are those of (a) poppers critical rationalism, (b) a consequence of popper’s critical preference, and (c) the increasing costs of marginal expansions of knowledge requiring increasingly granular investigations. This last “c” is where Popper went wrong, as nearly all philosophers go wrong, in that decidability is provided by the economics of the return: least cost, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the first, cheapest, option available.

    However, contrary to the OP, science is not based on democracy but *the market* for status signaling. The problem is, like any other status signal, status via publication within the scientific method requires high investment, and therefore those investments are often defended. So the market may change slowly and only after a paradigm shift caused by exhaustion of the market for signals either by market failure, or market replacement.

    (h/t: thanks to Bill Anderson, whose OP is not sharable )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 09:16:00 UTC

  • The way to understand personality traits is to fill in the blanks: “In negotiati

    The way to understand personality traits is to fill in the blanks:

    “In negotiations with others [trait] helps me with ….. “

    1) Ordliness (risk minimization) <-vs–> (reward maximization) Industriousness

    2) Confrontation (risk minimization) <–vs–> (opportunity maximization) Politeness.

    As far as I know all emotions can be expressed in three dimensions:

    x) Dominance (Aggression) vs (Flight) Submission

    y) Pain vs Pleasure.

    z) Excitement vs Calm


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 20:34:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/30742960_10156298896447264_26276020

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/30742960_10156298896447264_2627602090511302656_n_10156298896437264.jpg (from a friend, from elsewhere)Cam PyperRevolutionary, if your timing is right.Apr 19, 2018 11:07pmJames HalladayI wish you made more videos. Your perspective is so insightfulApr 20, 2018 6:12amCurt Doolittlesoon…Apr 20, 2018 8:14amDaniel Roland Anderson@[741197263:2048:Curt Doolittle]

    Don’t you dare Robert Jordan us.Apr 21, 2018 1:22am(from a friend, from elsewhere)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 19:59:00 UTC

  • MALE AND FEMALE COGNITIVE COMPATIBILITY All general rules of arbitrary precision

    MALE AND FEMALE COGNITIVE COMPATIBILITY

    All general rules of arbitrary precision must of necessity refer to a distribution. The fact that there may be voluntary and involuntary outliers in that distribution does not influence the correspondence of the general rule. It is nearly impossible for women to learn to think as such for evolutionary reasons. It is necessary for men to think as such, for those same reasons. This is why ‘compatibility but inequality’ thesis is the best to live by. We must know when the other ‘sensibility’ (female case, male general rule) provides the answer to the question.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 19:57:00 UTC