Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Our “Roskomnadzor”: American Censorship Is Merely Privately Funded

    —”The West also has its Roskomnadzor (Ros’-ko-mnad’-zor / Роскомнадзор), but it’s private.”— Maxim V Filimonov

    Roskomnadzor: The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media or Roskomnadzor is the Russian federal executive body responsible for censorship in media and telecommunications Founded: May 12, 2008 Number of employees: 3,019 (2017) Headquarters: Moscow, Russia Parent agency: Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation

    —”If you want to know the correct opinion on anything relating to the internet – censorship, privacy, net neutrality, bluecheck privilege – it’s the opposite of what the NIGARFAGTs want: Netflix, Instagram, Gofundme, Amazon, Reddit, Facebook, Apple, Google, and Twitter.”—Michael Andrade

    (Via Steve Pender)

  • “That’s what altruistic punishment is. Making immorality more expensive than mor

    —“That’s what altruistic punishment is. Making immorality more expensive than morality”—Martin Štěpán

  • “That’s what altruistic punishment is. Making immorality more expensive than mor

    —“That’s what altruistic punishment is. Making immorality more expensive than morality”—Martin Štěpán

  • Pinker Has Joined Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno, Harari, Harris in Selling Half Truths

    Nov 21, 2019, 10:56 AM NO, VIOLENCE (harm) is evolving (progressing) along the spectrum from physical, to financial, economic, to informational. There is more HARM than ever in human history and on far greater scales. It’s just distributed across time across the entirety of human capital. Measure it.

    —“Pinker addresses this in the FAQ on his site. Metaphorically extending the term ‘violence’ to practices you want to stigmatize(financial crime, inequality, etc) with rape, homicide and genocide confuse moralization with understanding. … Certainly, there are new financial, economic and informational practices that are bad and may even be increasing, but Pinker’s work is focused on violence, not “bad things”.”—

    I know law and philosophy are my specializations but I would think that was pretty hard for you to say that with an outside voice. Ergo: why is violence a ‘bad’? And why make the claim in the first place if not to claim harms are declining (they aren’t). In other words, (a) false promise to people by the sophism that harms are declining (they aren’t),(b) false promise of disambiguation of physical from net harms? So what if physical harm declines while net harm increases, for no other reason than physical harm is less profitable? All Steven is saying is what every other economist says: harms are NOT decreasing, it’s just that physical crimes are more costly and less profitable than at any previous time in history. So why not state Whole Truth? Another system of lies like Boas, Freud, Marx, Cantor? See? This is the problem with the left of center “Pseudo -Intellectual’ public intellectuals: They produce what sells but is only half true and that’s because they rely on correlations not as economists or physicists: OPERATIONALISMS. Tell the WHOLE truth not half-truth: lying.

  • Pinker Has Joined Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno, Harari, Harris in Selling Half Truths

    Nov 21, 2019, 10:56 AM NO, VIOLENCE (harm) is evolving (progressing) along the spectrum from physical, to financial, economic, to informational. There is more HARM than ever in human history and on far greater scales. It’s just distributed across time across the entirety of human capital. Measure it.

    —“Pinker addresses this in the FAQ on his site. Metaphorically extending the term ‘violence’ to practices you want to stigmatize(financial crime, inequality, etc) with rape, homicide and genocide confuse moralization with understanding. … Certainly, there are new financial, economic and informational practices that are bad and may even be increasing, but Pinker’s work is focused on violence, not “bad things”.”—

    I know law and philosophy are my specializations but I would think that was pretty hard for you to say that with an outside voice. Ergo: why is violence a ‘bad’? And why make the claim in the first place if not to claim harms are declining (they aren’t). In other words, (a) false promise to people by the sophism that harms are declining (they aren’t),(b) false promise of disambiguation of physical from net harms? So what if physical harm declines while net harm increases, for no other reason than physical harm is less profitable? All Steven is saying is what every other economist says: harms are NOT decreasing, it’s just that physical crimes are more costly and less profitable than at any previous time in history. So why not state Whole Truth? Another system of lies like Boas, Freud, Marx, Cantor? See? This is the problem with the left of center “Pseudo -Intellectual’ public intellectuals: They produce what sells but is only half true and that’s because they rely on correlations not as economists or physicists: OPERATIONALISMS. Tell the WHOLE truth not half-truth: lying.

  • There Are No Better Angels of Our Nature.

    Nov 21, 2019, 11:00 AM Man is just a rational actor, and physical crime has become less rewarding because assets are largely intangible, consumption is absurdly cheap – especially foods, there are many more means of entertainment (yes crime is also a form of entertainment).

  • There Are No Better Angels of Our Nature.

    Nov 21, 2019, 11:00 AM Man is just a rational actor, and physical crime has become less rewarding because assets are largely intangible, consumption is absurdly cheap – especially foods, there are many more means of entertainment (yes crime is also a form of entertainment).

  • We’re both working from the same data. That they aren’t a state threat is true.

    We’re both working from the same data. That they aren’t a state threat is true. That it would be possible to contain them if they were a threat is not. That the government would survive in the current world climate under exercise of force is questionable. Outcome is a coin toss.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-31 00:38:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266891741321474054

    Reply addressees: @bush_yeb @FrankFigliuzzi1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266878058608209920

  • We’re both working from the same data. That they aren’t a state threat is true.

    We’re both working from the same data. That they aren’t a state threat is true. That it would be possible to contain them if they were a threat is not. That the government would survive in the current world climate under exercise of force is questionable. Outcome is a coin toss.

    Reply addressees: @bush_yeb @FrankFigliuzzi1

  • To the Idiots Who Disagreed: “take the Countryside and The Cities Will Fall.”

      Martin van Creveld is one of the top two military historians living today and was responsible for correctly predicting the rise of terrorism, and as a consequence 4GW (4th Generation Warfare). He has posted an article by William Lind – the man behind popularizing the arrival of 4GW. And so when I say (a) it would be easy, (b) I would copy mao, and (c) the military and first responders would not resist (hard) if (d) they were given set of constitutional demands more desirable than the present. I have absolute confidence (certainty) in our success. Not because we would march on Washington. But because Washington is irrelevant. The military will take Washington of its own accord. Because we will ask them to. The blue sh-tholes would fall of their own accord and be consumed from within. No cash machines. No EBT cards. No power. No data. No food. No heat. So don’t take it from me. Take it from one of the most knowledgeable men alive. We would, and will, win. Show up. —“At that point, in the vast electoral sea that is red America, the legitimacy of the system itself, i.e., the state, will be brought into serious question. And when that happens, the chance of Fourth Generation war here on a large scale will rise dramatically. When you tell people they cannot achieve representation through ballots, they start to think about doing it with bullets. That electoral map, the one that shows the results of the 2016 election by county, has significant military meaning. The blue votes are concentrated in cities, which cannot feed themselves. As Chairman Mao said, “Take the countryside and the cities will fall.” Nor can they be supplied from the sea, because most of the people in the military are Trump supporters, which means the red side will get most of the ships and planes. The military problem is really quite simple, and need involve virtually no shooting or destruction. You just put the cities under siege and wait for the starving people to come out. It won’t take long. The message to Washington is clear and direct: if President Trump is driven from office by anything other than a loss in the 2020 election (if he runs), the legitimacy of the state will be brought into question. That is a dangerous business that politicians of both parties would be wise to avoid. After all, they will be the first people hanged from the nearest lamppost if widespread 4GW comes here. An impeachment that leads to the checkpoints going up all over rural America is a very bad idea.”— William Lind