—“Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.”—David Sloan Wilson, E. O. Wilson.
I would have agreed before the european hegemony ended. Now I have the opposite opinion. Because I think it was a statement of economics not biology
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-28 14:14:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52702681_10157018306777264_2367313453032407040_n_10157018306772264.jpg —“Proprietarianism-You can have my donut if I can have yours and no one else gets harmed in the process”–Greg Grzywacz
He forgot the last bit.
—…. Otherwise, either you don’t get my donut, and if you even try, I’m going to end you and eat both our donuts.”–CurtDNicholas Christopher RichardWhat’s the propertarian donut ethic?Feb 28, 2019, 11:50 AMFrancesco PrincipiPrincipi I prefer womenFeb 28, 2019, 11:51 AMZach MattoNicholas Christopher Richard Incremental suppression of people eating more donuts than they’ve earned = the west…?Feb 28, 2019, 12:04 PMMicah PezdirtzLocke, Nietzsche and heraclitusFeb 28, 2019, 12:25 PMDaniel OgburnMarx description/analogy is shockingly wrong.
Some of the others are shaky at best.Feb 28, 2019, 12:27 PMDaniel OgburnAlso,
Freud — the donut is a symbol of man’s sexual desire.
Jung — the shape of the donut
Is a result your childhood
templates.
Ogburn — If you’re fat, don’t eat the
donut.Feb 28, 2019, 12:30 PMDaniel OgburnAlso Ogburn — the donut is anything homeomorphic to s1 x s1Feb 28, 2019, 12:31 PMDaniel OgburnDavin Eastley — the donut reminds me of my sisters.Feb 28, 2019, 12:32 PMDavin Eastleyit’s a teacupFeb 28, 2019, 12:32 PMCurt DoolittleMarx: the classes are at war instead of tripartite, rather than the semites and the aryan are at war, and the semites can’t develop morals and ethics of high trust commons.Feb 28, 2019, 12:38 PMEric BlankenburgThere is something to be said for the directness and simplicity of Locke. ;)Feb 28, 2019, 12:43 PMDavin EastleyPrevent the theft of donuts from the commons.Feb 28, 2019, 12:49 PMDavin EastleyProtect the donut commons from parasitism.Feb 28, 2019, 12:49 PMThorsten NorgateBill & Ted version – All we are is doughnuts in the wind, Dude.Feb 28, 2019, 12:50 PMShannon Constantine Logandonut in totoFeb 28, 2019, 1:29 PMJWarren Prescottfreud was rightFeb 28, 2019, 1:37 PMGreg GrzywaczProprietarianism-You can have my donut if I can have yours and no one else gets harmed in the processFeb 28, 2019, 2:05 PMCurt DoolittlepricelessFeb 28, 2019, 2:07 PMCurt Doolittleadded to op.Feb 28, 2019, 2:08 PMMichael BurkeDerrida: donut, eclair, muffin? What the difference?Feb 28, 2019, 2:19 PMPiero ThymiopoulosWithout a means of power to obtain the donut, one simply can’t obtain it.Feb 28, 2019, 9:44 PMAdrian Folkersamlet’s get this (glazed) bread kingsMar 1, 2019, 3:11 PMBill JoslinReciprocity is shaped like DonutMar 1, 2019, 4:53 PMRob RandallStealing this picture.Mar 1, 2019, 5:14 PMGünther Shroomachersounds weird 😀
edit: let’s make donut together and make sure no one else gets harmed in the processMar 1, 2019, 9:44 PMEric RushNeeds some Lord BerkeleyMar 3, 2019, 5:55 PM—“Proprietarianism-You can have my donut if I can have yours and no one else gets harmed in the process”–Greg Grzywacz
He forgot the last bit.
—…. Otherwise, either you don’t get my donut, and if you even try, I’m going to end you and eat both our donuts.”–CurtD
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-28 11:38:00 UTC
—“Westerners evolved from scarcity and low opportunity, trough a feedback system of effort-related opportunity where cognitive empathy evolved to accommodate the potential of exhaustive tit-for-tat. Affective empathy is just entropy under homogeneity and persistent norms and institutions (hence, Scandinavia).”—Simon Ström
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-24 15:12:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52647513_10157010566322264_8109264868961419264_o_10157010566307264.jpg Bill JoslinAnd generous tit-for-tat doesn’t imply unbound forgiveness, but rather occasional deviations from tit-for-tat towards generousity (forgiveness). It essentially resets the game for cooperation when cooperation has failed.
Eye-for-an-eye in most things with an occasional “turn the other cheek” to re-establish trust and Cooperation (which would be a second order reciprocal exchange – offering forgiveness now to secure the opportunity to be forgiven in the future if you screw up later) – otherwise known as incremental supression (I see incremental supression as attempting to achieve an optimum between forbearance and prosecution)Feb 24, 2019, 2:39 PMGreg HamiltonI don’t know Freyr is a pretty good role model…Feb 24, 2019, 5:49 PMPaul BardDidn’t Axelrod find the optimal strategy was exhaustive forgiveness, because tit-for-tat may be wrongly triggered by poor or mistaken information about your trading partners?
In other words, we can’t be sure the other isn’t doing their best to reciprocate, but we can definitively use force to oppose the other from doing harm.Feb 24, 2019, 9:52 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-24 14:11:00 UTC
Josh Jeppson negotiated ‘play nice’. Ergo I will play nice. Thank him not me for keeping the peace.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 16:15:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098617315158097920
THE TRADE WITH XIANITY
1 – Look. I have an agreement ‘with management’ to stop harshing on Xianity now that my tests are done. You have really good people on the christian side. I recommend a lot of them. James fox Higgins and Vox Day among the obvious. Distributist is good at what he does too. …
2 – … so given that we are speaking in different grammars, me in via negativa science and law of dispute resolution, and you are speaking in via positiva of theology of organization, it’s not possible to discourse.
3 – So, if you want your faith I’ll fight for it if you fight for my law.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 15:25:00 UTC
( 3 -The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible.Otherwise not.The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 15:13:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098601628700155904
Reply addressees: @mauritian_strug @DataDistribute
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480
Josh Jeppson negotiated ‘play nice’. Ergo I will play nice. Thank him not me for keeping the peace.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 11:15:00 UTC
We are big boys, and sometimes big boys play big boy games. I think we have agreed to cool down. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 05:45:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098458763776978944
Reply addressees: @Macron96Cheese @DataDistribute @lordhumongous3
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098453709221027841
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098453709221027841
The training of intuition by Myth, Ritual, and Repetition which as a consequence produces interpersonal Regularity and personal Mindfulness, by reduction of need for comprehension of increasingly complex information where we have increasing limits to agency, in complex polities.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 19:07:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098298171896274944
Reply addressees: @HHBenedictXVII
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098296821338857473
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098296821338857473