–“The purpose of power is to deny people power and to force them in to agency instead.”–
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 16:41:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811440575989850161
–“The purpose of power is to deny people power and to force them in to agency instead.”–
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 16:41:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811440575989850161
I assume you’re dismissing his geopolitical thought because you find his political centrism to center-leftism offensive. Fortunately I can distinguish between the two. And I even assume his political position is more pragmatic business interest than intuition. So you know,…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 14:29:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811407444431536222
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811357206899556632
Again, a confession as an accusation using the female method of projection. You’re stereotypical.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 14:24:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811406328549814345
Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811405244837888275
If you study my work, at least my work on sex differences in cognition, valuation, and expression, eventually you’ll see the subversion, selfishness, irresponsibility, and deception of the feminine whenever you read or hear the words of women.
The question is, can women be made self aware of their behavior despite it’s instinctual origin, such that women can achieve sufficient rational responsibility to participate in politics, government, and law?
Because at present the predictions of the anti-suffrage population is bearing out almost exactly as they stated.
You see, I want to fix problems not just complain about them. And I think maybe this is possible.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 14:12:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811403224563200000
Then you are simply admitting to my oft discussed argument that the test of intelligence is the number of lily pads necessary to cross the pond between increasingly contextually divergent patterns.
In other words, you’re inadvertently confessing to a lack of competency to judge that upon which you opine.
You could in fact, study something as simple as my tables of sex differences in cognition, or the table of grammars, or the methodology of disambiguation, or the ternary logic, or the trifunctional competition between civilizations.
You could try to find fault with any of those bodies of my work.
But you haven’t, and likely because you can’t, and for reason’s you’ve inadvertently confessed.
Outing yourself in public by demonstrating the canonical feminine is a rather ironic method of defending the feminine against the masculine.
So you know, I find you, in the end, more than a bit silly, childish, and cognitively feminine – which means childish.
Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice @a7959705360789
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 14:06:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811401569453154304
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811381429978243410
Rather fascinating if amateurish take, without any argument that addresses my work (or my organization’s work or life’s achievements.)
Instead, under the common feminine assumption your opinion or approval has any value or merit, you use the female pretense of knowledge, pretense of authority, combined with ad hominem undermining by casting unsupported assertions consisting of nothing but vapid opinions, made worse by the rather obvious demonstration that you cannot distinguish between true / false independent of you, and desirable / undesirable by you. And this is on top of a history of incompetency in analysis of the incentives and cognitive differences of both sexes.
I mean, for all your railing against the masculine mind, you’re a canonical example of the failures of the psychotic feminine despite it’s organization into relatively cogent prose.
So either you can explain all behavior of either sex as pursuit of rational incentives in the face of ignorance of consequences or you cannot. If you cannot do that then you cannot also distinguish truth from preferential bias in justification of selfish incentives.
From my perspective you were an interesting person with potential given the passion of your arguments and the detail in your observations. But through cumulative experience it at least appears you cannot disentangle your rage, bias, and selfishness sufficiently to produce understanding rather than complaint.
To expand our organization and it’s influence, I (we) seek out talent that can be improved. It’s sifting through haystacks for rare needles. But once in a while it does bear fruit. Unfortunately, not in this case.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice @a7959705360789
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 13:59:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811399796093009920
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811381883642519703
No. Though back and forth gene flow did occur.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 03:21:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811239366913593542
Reply addressees: @Shady_bugger @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811239071811047434
BTW: I do understand, that by your response, you’re just sedating your insecurity.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 03:01:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811234291151417609
Reply addressees: @a7959705360789 @spaceangelvoice
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811233921612361821
It’s a simple measurement. Sorry. Don’t blame me. Blame the statisticians.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 03:00:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811234137807659402
Reply addressees: @a7959705360789 @spaceangelvoice
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811233921612361821
I should just say: “A response that is stereotypic of the female cognitive bias and combined with limited intelligence.”
And FWIW:
1) I have no interest in causing a revolution. My purpose is to overcome the false belief that revolt and revolution can’t occur, precisely so that we solve the problems of the age so that it DOESN’T occur. (Which I’ve been chanting consistently for a decade). The fact that you don’t know or understand this is representative of your frame of reference not mine or our organizations.
2) I’ve been following you because I see potential, and I”m trying to understand your reasoning because some of your criticisms of men are true, on the remote chance your energies can be positively directed if whatever is off in your reasoning or intuition is corrected. We have collected extraordinary people in our organization. And while I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to understand or make use of the technical aspects of my work, it doesn’t mean you have no potential value to me, us, the informational commons if we could educate you a bit – largely in neuroscience and cognitive science.
3) Categorically, I’m a genius by every known measure. And such name calling is rather humorous.
Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 02:33:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811227386564014080
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811215983408742485