Theme: Commons

  • Quite the opposite. SHORT LIST OF FEMALE MEANS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, EVADING R

    Quite the opposite.

    SHORT LIST OF FEMALE MEANS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, EVADING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMMONS WHILE HIDING BEHIND MORAL PRETENSE

    CAUSE: Evasion of responsibility for the common but demand for control of the commons, externalizing consequential responsibility to males.

    Industrialize the sale and distribution of false promises by the tactics of by means of:

    Denial
    1. Dismissal of the Evidence, History, Argument, Incentives, Norm, or Tradition
    2. Evading providing a competitive, equally criticizable and testable alternative.
    3. Equating Desirability-Undesirability and Approval-Disapproval or Denial with Truth and Falsehood
    4. Face-Before-Truth rather than European truth-before-face, or threat to the dominance or competence hierarchy.
    4. NAXALT – “Not All X Are Like  That” – Denying a general rule describing a distribution is false because there are some cases at the tails.

    Undermining by Ad Hominem (GSRRM)
    Consisting of:
    1. Poisoning the Well (Polluting the Informational Commons)
    2. GSRRM:
    … denial
    … disapproval,
    … outraging
    … ridicule,
    … shaming,
    … moralizing,
    … psychologizing,
    … rallying,
    … gossiping,
    … reputation destruction
    … and Social Construction

    Creating Plausible Deniability
    1. Hiding Behind Moral Pretense
    2. Hiding behind Voluntary Choice
    3. Hiding behind Sympathy for Hyper consumption (experiences)
    4. Hiding Behind (Selective) Evasion of Responsibility
    5. Heaping Undue Criticism (Persecution) and Undue Praise (personalizing)

    Fraud by: Claiming Oppression by individuals as a proxy for laws of nature, or conversely claiming false promise of possibility of evading the laws of nature:
    1. False Promise of Freedom from Formal Laws (logic, truth) by the use of social construction of repetitive feedback of information counter to formal, physical, natural, and evolutionary laws.
    2. False Promise of Freedom from Physical Laws (scarcity, false promise of endless growth). by the false promise of endless growth, an end to scarcity, and an end to human competition by demonstrated acquisition.
    3. False Promise of Freedom Natural Laws (of self-interest, rational choice, amorality, reciprocity, competitive organization), by the false promise of an end to kin selection, koinophillia, ethnocentrism, sex, class, subrace, and racial differences, and the sexual, social, economic, and political value of organization by ethnocentrism given the class, subrace, and subrace differences in sexual, social, economic, and political value to one another, given the substantial evolutionary difference between the races and subraces.
    4. False Promise of Freedom from Evolutionary Laws ( ending natural, and market selection, accumulating mutation and regulation, the impossibility of isolation, inescapable regression, accumulated genetic load, dysgenia, and the red queen of resources, competitors, biological, climatological, geological, solar, and galactic risks. ).

    Using “Storytelling” by:
    1. Faith Healing, delaying into hazard. Faith Healing consists of providing temporary psychological relief while allowing the cause to persist, grow, and evolve.
    2. False Story Telling, baiting you into empathy, loading, framing, obscurantism, suggestion, suspension of disbelief and overloading.
    3. False Promise, baiting into hazard. Baiting into hazard consists of making false promises of freedom from the laws of the universe. arguing them with sophistry to idealism, magic to pseudoscience, or occult to theology.
    4. False Criticism, undermining into hazard.
    5. Duplicitous, Double Standard, Irreciprocal, and Poly Logical Ethics, like their polylogical unequal laws,

    Escalating from the least burdensome to the most burdensome tactic:
    1. Faith healing at every opportunity (lie and deny)
    2. Selling false promise if they can (fraud)
    3. Evading or silencing at every necessity (shaming, moralizing, psychologizing)
    4. Undermining if they have opportunity to (sedition)
    5. Attack if they can get away with it (de-platforming, conspiracy)
    6. Hiding behind plausible deniability of freedom of choice (non-coercion)
    he opposite.

    Reply addressees: @WomanPissedoff


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 20:13:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648057143289958421

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648045661147877415

  • We hope they are ostracized and fearful enough that they keep their behavior pri

    We hope they are ostracized and fearful enough that they keep their behavior private and out of the commons – that’s the purpose of norms, and countersignaling abuse of norms. Worse, given the family is the first organization of producdtion, and children are the most expensive…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-16 09:58:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647539961355292673

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647520317953253377

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @KCDefenseLawyer The jewish strategy is ‘avoiding the cost of

    RT @curtdoolittle: @KCDefenseLawyer The jewish strategy is ‘avoiding the cost of territory, commons, rule and defense, by create a state wi…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-12 16:08:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646183624100954113

  • Why? Femininity is Irresponsibilty for the commons by pretence of care for the c

    Why? Femininity is Irresponsibilty for the commons by pretence of care for the commons, when it’s just hiding behind false virtue signaling to escape that responsibility for the high cost of protection of the commons.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 18:25:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643681388409888781

    Reply addressees: @cringrpablo36 @DanAnde23836316

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643680948850917376

  • Disagree (relucantly) Lefties want irresponsibility for self and commons Rightie

    Disagree (relucantly)
    Lefties want irresponsibility for self and commons
    Righties want responsibility for self and commons

    Why? Reduction of all sex differences in cogntion prouctes a reduction of all human differences in cognition:

    Feminine: Prey bais, Empathic prediction, Interpersonal, Temporal, Verbal, hyperconsumptive, irresponsible for commons (responsible only for offspring) as status.
    vs
    Masculine: Predator bias, Systemic prediction, political, intertemporal, Space-Time, Hypercapitalizing, responsibile for commons as status.

    If you deconstruct any political or sex difference it will result in consumption vs capitalization, responsibility vs not, and status by those two means.

    Humans really are, algorithmically, biologically, physically,r eally that simple. The rest is narrative we use to broadcast non aggression on the one and and compatibilities on the other for the purpose of negotiation acquisition, retention, consumption, of demonstrated interests, and the status that results, because status drives opportunity costs.

    People are just bots.
    Most of history, and certainly theology and philosophy, are just evolved means of virtue signaling means of achieving those two sex differences in ends.

    Truth isn’t always comforting. Sometimes I don’t like my job. 😉

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-03 22:34:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643019147662458885

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642985723245502466

  • Disagree (relucantly) Lefties want irresponsibility for self and commons Rightie

    Disagree (relucantly)
    Lefties want irresponsibility for self and commons
    Righties want responsibility for self and commons

    Why? Reduction of all sex differences in cogntion prouctes a reduction of all human differences in cognition:

    Feminine: Prey bais, Empathic prediction, Interpersonal, Temporal, Verbal, hyperconsumptive, irresponsible for commons (responsible only for offspring) as status.
    vs
    Masculine: Predator bias, Systemic prediction, political, intertemporal, Space-Time, Hypercapitalizing, responsibile for commons as status.

    If you deconstruct any political or sex difference it will result in consumption vs capitalization, responsibility vs not, and status by those two means.

    Humans really are, algorithmically, biologically, physically,r eally that simple. The rest is narrative we use to broadcast non aggression on the one and and compatibilities on the other for the purpose of negotiation acquisition, retention, consumption, of demonstrated interests, and the status that results, because status drives opportunity costs.

    People are just bots.
    Most of history, and certainly theology and philosophy, are just evolved means of virtue signaling means of achieving those two sex differences in ends.

    Truth isn’t always comforting. Sometimes I don’t like my job. 😉

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.

    Reply addressees: @SRCHicks


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-03 22:34:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643019147528339458

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642985723245502466

  • Think a bit: zero cost. tragedy of the commons. meaning some people use it all,

    Think a bit: zero cost. tragedy of the commons. meaning some people use it all, leaving none for others: market failure. non-scarcity doesn’t mean everyone gets some. It might mean a few people get everything for nothing. AND FWIW: it’s not clear this is that different from the past (doesn’t appear to be) only that we are now aware of it, and costly education is slipping the age range a bit higher.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-29 14:01:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641078085020778496

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641075743890477056

  • Think a bit: zero cost. tragedy of the commons. meaning some people use it all,

    Think a bit: zero cost. tragedy of the commons. meaning some people use it all, leaving none for others: market failure. non-scarcity doesn’t mean everyone gets some. It might mean a few people get everything for nothing. AND FWIW: it’s not clear this is that different from the past (doesn’t appear to be) only that we are now aware of it, and costly education is slipping the age range a bit higher.

    Reply addressees: @jskayfshd


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-29 14:01:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641078084915871744

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641075743890477056

  • THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF SEX DIFFERENCES: (explaining everything) For the sake of

    THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF SEX DIFFERENCES:
    (explaining everything)

    For the sake of the audience:

    Males seek responsibility for commons and capitalization for status,
    and;
    Females seek hyperconsumption and irresponsibility for commons for status.

    Conversely,
    Males demonstrate conspiracy theories,
    and
    Females demonstrate oppression narratives,
    both to sate their higher neuroticism.

    So, as in all things, whether positive or negative motivation for behavior, males and females demonstrate mirror images of one another – largely just in:
    a) empathizing-systematizing,
    b) consumption-capitalization, and
    c) irresponsibility-responsibility for commons.

    And all human differences are expressable as consequences of those sex differences.

    Yes, humans are that simple.
    Just bots.
    Not much more.
    Really.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 01:36:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640165790711201794

  • THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF SEX DIFFERENCES: (explaining everything) For the sake of

    THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF SEX DIFFERENCES:
    (explaining everything)

    For the sake of the audience:

    Males seek responsibility for commons and capitalization for status,
    and;
    Females seek hyperconsumption and irresponsibility for commons for status.

    Conversely,
    Males demonstrate conspiracy theories,
    and
    Females demonstrate oppression narratives,
    both to sate their higher neuroticism.

    So, as in all things, whether positive or negative motivation for behavior, males and females demonstrate mirror images of one another – largely just in:
    a) empathizing-systematizing,
    b) consumption-capitalization, and
    c) irresponsibility-responsibility for commons.

    And all human differences are expressable as consequences of those sex differences.

    Yes, humans are that simple.
    Just bots.
    Not much more.
    Really.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 01:36:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640165790816120832