WHY? WHY ARE WE WINNING? WE ARE NO LONGER HOPEFUL THAT THE REST CAN BE MADE HONORABLE
1) Their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we weren’t aware
2) Then their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we we didn’t stop and punish them
3) Then their advantage was lie and cheat and deceive– and we didn’t deceive them back.
4) Now we are – and they are crumbling
Winning is fun. We are no longer converting, but conquering.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 09:07:00 UTC
JAMES ON “HONOR (GLOATING) IN DECEIT”
Regarding “honor-in-deceit”, let’s tease this out because it is beyond that. If you remember Japanese, say during WWII, only cowards surrender. I true warrior would rather die in battle or by suicide (not agreeing with hat, just observing).
So here we have not just “honor-in-deceit” but “mocking, and gloating”, so that if you TRUST and show HONOR and get cheated — you got punked like a farm animal and are shat upon.
Then if you simply close the doors and say never again they come back, please please or you are racist! to let them in. Then you will get punked again and they laugh and mock you.
Let’s Repeat That:
—“It’s not just honor-in-deceit, but a mocking, and gloating, that if you TRUST and show HONOR and get cheated — you got punked like a farm animal and are shat upon.”—
They POISON the MORAL WELL, and leave only the option for physical retaliation.
Which is precisely what HONOR REQUIRES (duty, cost of maintaining the commons).
If we argue and disagree we can separate.
If we argue and insult we must punish.
That is the only way to preserve the moral and informational commons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 08:53:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45382362_10156754956122264_2516246022456344576_o_10156754956107264.jpg I have (((Their))) Method of Argument down in form. James has it down in stages of argument and counter-argument. We just need to educate everyone on it. Then we need to educate everyone that the only reason to NOT engage in ‘warfare’ and instead in debate, is if we are actually debating in order to determine a trade when we don’t agree, or a good, when we do. Then we need to engage in ‘War’ often enough that we suppress the ‘poisoning of the well’.Andrea RoyallLet me sum up Librarian Vee.. “I don’t understand a fucking thing you said because those words are not in my vocabulary. I’m too lazy and entilted to educate myself. Nor, why should I because I’m chosen..”Nov 4, 2018, 8:54 AMCurt DoolittleI took it as an honest statement of “thank you for listing those out for me”. I realize it can be taken either way. But I riffed off it.Nov 4, 2018, 8:54 AMAndrea RoyallThats because you are far more patient that I am. It’s why you do what you do 🙂Nov 4, 2018, 8:55 AMGiego CaleiroJoao FabianoNov 4, 2018, 8:58 AMNick DahlheimAndrea Royall I love you because you’re ferocious for the truthNov 4, 2018, 9:03 AMCurt DoolittleAndrea Royall did you … did you just try to call me a nice guy? lolNov 4, 2018, 9:04 AMCurt Doolittle(Don’t tell anyone. I covet my reputation as a dick)Nov 4, 2018, 9:05 AMRob EllermanIt should be relatively simple to identify “moralistic” argumentation — “I’m not yet convinced you can argue without it” —- it’s the god damn virtue signaling and white knighting – I call it context dropping … these people can’t hold or don’t want to hold any propositions against uniform criteria … the lower IQ right is prone to this as well … they pick their team then throw shit arguments at the wall in machine gun fashion hoping something sticksNov 4, 2018, 9:14 AMJeff UrizenThe lefts only moral dynamic is caring /fairness. They simply Ignore loyalty, authority, and sanctity. The problem is really on the right, the right doesn’t understand morality well, it understands traditional values specifically, it can verbalize the specific beliefs it holds like patriotism, but it doesn’t understand the structure that those traditional values fall into, and if you lack that information it’s hard to argue why they matter. If you don’t understand the structure of morality you can’t see that the left is merely winning by ignoring moral dynamics completely, they’re taking things out of context, and the right is failing to be able to say “hey what about loyalty, what about authority, or sanctity. You have to make the left answer the questions of these other moral dynamics. We need a cultural shift where these dynamics each get a day in court in the political Dialoge.Nov 4, 2018, 9:23 AMAndrea RoyallCurt Doolittle me?? I said patient…. 🙂 no way I’d imply you were a nice guy…Nov 4, 2018, 9:27 AMRob EllermanThey signal caring and fairness … but drop the context when it doesn’t serve their implicit ends … happens on the right all the time
In terms of values – I don’t care whether they are traditional or not – the question is “what are the consequences of a consistent application of the proposition?” If you don’t drop the context of your implicationsNov 4, 2018, 9:31 AMAndrea RoyallI’d posit that you cannot have caring/fairness without loyalty, authority, sanctity.. and ultimately, agency. It’s all just a facade otherwise. Which, in my mind, perfectly describes the left.
And the issue with morality on the right is that it derives it’s morality from Christianity, wholesale. That’s a lot of deprogramming that has to happen.Nov 4, 2018, 9:39 AMRob EllermanAndrea Royall how do we square the idea that Europeans have genetically determinate reproductive strategies – but are also “programmable” via Christian edicts and “deprogrammable” via propertarian thinking 🤔Nov 4, 2018, 10:17 AMAndrea RoyallThat’s a very good question. Curt has more answers to that. I broke that programming long ago. Basically, because I was a questioning, impetuous child that didn’t accept authority. I haven’t changed much since.. lolNov 4, 2018, 10:19 AMRob EllermanAndrea Royall I think my disposition was probably pretty similar 👌Nov 4, 2018, 10:26 AMAndrea RoyallChristianity cut Europeans from their roots.. just as Islam has done to the Iraqis and Syrians. Less so for the Lebanese and Persians. Which, I find, quite interestingNov 4, 2018, 10:29 AMRob EllermanNature or nurture Curt Doolittle?Nov 4, 2018, 10:29 AMGilberto CarlosA sniper is patient.Nov 4, 2018, 10:59 AMJames Lyons Sr.I’ll stand the thin blue line between respect my light and fear my dark until cut down because my nuts ( those I love) won’t stay in the bag…and cause me to venture and strayNov 4, 2018, 11:10 AMAndrea RoyallCurt is our philosophical sniper.. 🙂Nov 4, 2018, 12:11 PMI have (((Their))) Method of Argument down in form. James has it down in stages of argument and counter-argument. We just need to educate everyone on it. Then we need to educate everyone that the only reason to NOT engage in ‘warfare’ and instead in debate, is if we are actually debating in order to determine a trade when we don’t agree, or a good, when we do. Then we need to engage in ‘War’ often enough that we suppress the ‘poisoning of the well’.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 08:49:00 UTC
It was different reading SCI-FI in the 60’s and 70’s than it is today. Memories of the world war, the vietnam era, the cold war and space race provided context for them. The promise of a star trek future more so. Watergate, Vietnam Exit, and The oil crisis was a death blow. And so these things made us look for options. Which is why we threw ourselves at technology. when princess leah said “you are our only hope” that reflected our perception of the age of computers. So we had star wars, alien, Reagan Revolution, and the age of computers to run to. When I found neuromancer (1981 or 82) and then Snow Crash that was the future most of us went out to build. Why? unlike the cold war which was out of our control, building the world of Neuromancer was WITHIN our control… so we live it today.
What I notice most is that the time for contemplation (demand for self entertainment when bored) is gone, and we pay the price for it. Good trade maybe. But the ‘pace’ of the world is insane by those standards, and even then, the adults thought the pace of the world compared to the war era was insane. My grandmother had a red-x painted on the door, and neighbors dropped off deliveries at the end of the property, and people hitched up horses to go to town for what they needed. A generation before that was without electricity or running water.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 07:56:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45432069_10156754863392264_1854406083427172352_o_10156754863382264.jpg TO PINKER’S READERS ON YOUNG VOTERSTO PINKER’S READERS ON YOUNG VOTERS
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 07:42:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 07:11:00 UTC
THE LEFT “DEBATE” STRATEGY ISN’T TO DEBATE
Duplicity, ir-reciprocity, honor-in-deceit, profiting from inciting and exploitation of moral hazard, false promise, justificationary sophism (Pilpul), straw man sophism (Critique), and disapproval, shaming, rallying, moralizing as substitute for argument is a cultural strategy.
The Abrahamists institutionalized this method of ‘resistance’ to the Masculine(Aryan) method: reciprocity, honor in truth duty and sacrifice, suppression of moral hazard, limiting promises to the truthful and possible, using falsification (rather than justification), sticking to the central argument, and avoiding disapproval, shaming, rallying, and moralizing – and constraining to costs and benefits.
Left Wing = female reproductive strategy, associated cognitive biases, and associated brain structure:”The Herd”. It uses threat of ostracization from the Herd by disapproval, ridicule,shaming, gossip, moralizing, rallying – and not argument. I listed the steps in the technique.
Right wing = Male reproductive strategy, associated cognitive biases, and associated brain structure: “The Pack”.
The left (feminine cognitive bias) lacks Agency. The right possesses agency.
It’s that simple.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 07:11:00 UTC
Duplicity, ir-reciprocity, honor-in-deceit, profiting from inciting and exploitation of moral hazard, false promise, justificationary sophism (Pilpu), straw man sophism (Critique), and disapproval, shaming, rallying, moralizing as substitute for argument is a cultural strategy.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 00:00:00 UTC
–“Curt: What does +110 – 19 equal?”–
I don’t get it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-03 21:59:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-03 21:55:00 UTC