In economics we jokingly refer to competition as “coopera-tition”. After all , what is the difference between market competition and non-market conflcit?
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 19:49:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790469612431106533
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790468587263508725
WE ONLY NEED TO AGREE TO MOVE PORTIONS OF CONSERVATIVES IN ROUGHLY THE RIGHT DIRECTION -NOTHING MORE.
Look. We don’t all need to be the same, just gradually moving in the same general direction. Is any given media activist moving the needle forward? Yes. Has he used this hypersensitivity (that’s what conservatives do) to threats to reach a broad audience of those who are equally sensitive? Yes.
The truth is, and I know from his explanation of Stew’s strategy to me, that he knows exactly what he is doing and why and has researched the options thoroughly and applied them to reach a bigger audience that is more passionate and more likely to ACT than I can, or you can or the rest of us ASDs can.
So don’t look for people to cognitively, emotionally, and intellectually resonate with you. Instead, look for people who move some part of the spectrum that will actually SHOW UP in the direction necessary to bring about change.
He’s doing it.
And frankly he’s one of the smarter people that regularly interviews me, and he grasps what I’m saying. And as such he brings my ideas to a broader audience, legitimizing those ideas with people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to judge them on their own.
I will work with anyone for whom I can provide value in moving the needle in the right direction. I don’t need them to agree with me or me to agree with them to any greater degree than that: move forward in the right direction.
This “you have to think like me” is the reason conservatives and on the right fail – because the left isn’t infected with this disability.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @CamoDiver
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 19:25:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790463540953780224
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790460312254095524
FIXING THE COMMON CONFUSION OF “LAWS OF NATURE” WITH “NATURAL LAW” OF COOPERATION
Both you(Doug) and Martin have an odd habit of confusing the Laws of Nature(persistence) with the natural law (of cooperation).
I realize that the terms “laws of nature” and “Natural Law” are easily confused, but they originate in the sequence of discovered “Laws of Nature” and THUS discovered “Natural Law” of Cooperation, to use as court common and legislative law, as the terms of social, economic, and political cooperation, making possible the defeat those laws through cooperation at political and economic and strategic scales.
Now I know that intuitionistically this is an attractive conflation (falsehood) because it allows you to apply the naturalistic fallacy of the brutality of the laws of nature to the ‘benefits’ of the natural law of cooperation (sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, truth, excellence, and beauty): in other words, non aggression against demonstrated (earned) interests (assets).
But this is not only just a fallacy, but it is a falsehood, and it undermines the Natural Law just as the Abrahamics and the Marxists and the general feminine Left seek to undermine all terms, and redefine them as what they are not: social construction of falsehood: Lying. 😉
Hugs to you both.
Two of my favorite people whom I respect the most.
But you know, what y’all are doing ‘isn’t right’. 😉
CD
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw @AutistocratMS
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 19:01:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790457495296626688
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790447314856755604
RT @WalterIII: MASCULINE RECIPROCITY IS COUNTER-NARCISSISTIC
The Science of Cooperation is trying to tell the world this: Constructive, a…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 18:20:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790447078788731116
the ‘we’ thing is the problem. You assume people who already disagree with you on all but a few things will agree with you on those things. All political systems fail at the margins so a decider of last resort, that DOES simply make a personal judgement, is necessary.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 02:19:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790205348420235551
Reply addressees: @FuryForth
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790204249324073114
What if most people agree, you don’t, and they think you’re trying to free ride on their investment?
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 01:27:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790192211084144748
Reply addressees: @Chuck__Sargent @CatcusBlack
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790191793369165836
However a relatively small sub-population can, and repeatedly has, produced a moral populace, and the evidence is that it only takes a single generation of about 25 years.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 01:24:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790191506151629259
Reply addressees: @zxq9_nobobs
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790190535518629923
WHY DID RELIGIONS EVOLVE?
Religions arose for a good reason in the age of transformation – whenever population density reaches a point where importance to others, clan differences and class differences emerge and alienatino results we require religion. Where originally religion evolved out of the intersection of burial and feast, and formal religion evolved out of the generalization to all of the initiatic brotherhood of warriors. All of these: burial, feast, male adulthood, and the initiatic brotherhood of warriors are bondings that reduce the alienation that occurs with maturity and need for self responsibility.
Reply addressees: @Xene1042 @whatifalthist
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 18:22:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789722764418433024
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789721839041671613
THE BEAUTY OF AN INTANGIBLE GOD
The beauty of an intangible god is that we do not need to agree if god is external to the universe, the universe itself, a product of the universe, a product of mankind, a product of a population of people or a product of the individual mind.
All we need agree upon is the morals that god demands, would demand, or could demand from us for our own individual and collective good, and then we are able to find comfort and utility in life, wether experience god via some approximation of dreams, through context of ritual, through some sense of intuition, through comportment with tradition, or with rational understanding of the morals, traditions, rituals and institutions in producing mindfulness harmony and cooperation among people.
The only problem arises when on claims knowledge one does not and cannot posses in order to mandate beliefs rather than demand adherence to moral behavior we should have obtained by discipline and saturation in the religion’s traditions.
Hugs
CD
Reply addressees: @Xene1042 @whatifalthist
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 17:53:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789715610747727872
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789010444457279960
–“Q: CURT: What is a non-false religion”–
First, what does a religion consist of? A religion suppresses neuroticism and conflict among social animals by conveying a group evolutionary strategy as a standard of weights and measures in and across generations, using the simplest form of memory retention, and most general system of measurement: storytelling using archetypes.
So religions consist of a group evolutionary strategy, a set of metaphysical presumptions about man, nature, and the relations between, a mythos to communicated it, a system of argument to persist and defend it, and a network of rituals both for the individual, the family, and the polity, by way of the sacred (debt, thanks, and respect), the feast, and the festival, each of which reduces one another to a temporary equality, providing what we call ‘the spiritual’ which is the surrender the self to the pack biological response.
Most religions in the past have produced these necessities by lying. This is no longer advantageous because it is decreasingly possible. Only a minority of the population is possessed of personality traits open to submission, and worse, nder mass education these superstitions and occultisms, sophistries and pseudosciences are increasingly difficult – and at present only persist due to possibility of family and social indoctrination.
So effectively the world is searching for a non-false religion. And teh only non-false religion is stoicism (which is just behavioral modification). But it is too psychologically costly for all but the middle to upper classes, and is extremely difficult for women in particular.
That does not mean we cannot produce some intersection of stoicism and the four agreements for the individual, secular humanism as a philosophy, and nature, ethnicity, polity, ancestor, and hero worship which are the only true debts we have to respect, pay off, and transfer to the following generations.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @HakeemDemi
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-10 17:56:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788991505387995136
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788985008931184730