There is a vast difference between freedom to ridicule, shame, gossip, obscure, load, frame, overload, suggest, fictionalize, deceive, lie, and defraud, promote free riding, parasitism, predation – and speaking with reciprocity (morally), and truthfully.
Theme: Cooperation
-
The unspoken reason why men outperform in real world competition is loyalty and
The unspoken reason why men outperform in real world competition is loyalty and sacrifice to one another in disruption of the status hierarchy at personal risk.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 01:44:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974099045475110912
Reply addressees: @WebPaigee @leo_charlton
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974097278158991360
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/974097278158991360
-
one determines a christian by comparing him to observers of other religions. If
one determines a christian by comparing him to observers of other religions. If we produce christian actions (exhaustive extension of kinship love to non-kin)then we are de-facto christians. It’s not adherence to dogma (falsehoods) to pay the price of admission. It’s how we live.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 00:12:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974075717196615681
Reply addressees: @michaelsw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/969699229298913280
IN REPLY TO:
@michaelsw
Asking whether or not #JordanPeterson is a Christian might be a bad question. We don’t dismiss someone and what they have to say based on whether or not they are a believer. Better question(s). Is he speaking the truth? Is he challenging faulty philosophical presuppositions?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/969699229298913280
-
@sonshi_com The Russians for example are among the lowest trust peoples in repor
@sonshi_com The Russians for example are among the lowest trust peoples in reported trust, but watch what happens if there is an accident, or theft, or violence in a russian city vs a chinese, or god forbid, southeast asian city.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 18:37:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973991410532790290
-
Homogeneity increases all trust, diversity decreases all trust. As a general rul
Homogeneity increases all trust, diversity decreases all trust.
As a general rule, the size and duration of the middle class determines the trust level because it is commercial society that incentivizes it. https://t.co/5ZMiw6CiBv
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 18:10:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973984816294133760
Reply addressees: @sonshi_com @rockyandmayur
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973976891949494273
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/973976891949494273
-
“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility the
–“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool)
I work on the compatibility thesis, and that it’s the distribution of talents in cooperation in a group, not individuals that produce ‘goods’.
Men and women are compatible. The classes, except at the bottom, are compatible. The peoples of the world, if they internalize their own costs of domestication, are compatible.
Only europeans could invent what we have invented, but any people willing to adopt those technologies (including eugenic mating practices) can make use of them.
As for ‘superiority’, europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy, and a civilization of markets in everything because of it – and no one else did.
All human peoples can transcend the animal. But it comes at the cost of continuous reduction of the underclasses through constraints on reproduction and mating.
That’s just how it is.
So, no. All peoples can transcend.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 12:10:00 UTC
-
“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility the
–“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility thesis, and that it’s the distribution of talents in cooperation in a group, not individuals that produce ‘goods’. Men and women are compatible. The classes, except at the bottom, are compatible. The peoples of the world, if they internalize their own costs of domestication, are compatible. Only europeans could invent what we have invented, but any people willing to adopt those technologies (including eugenic mating practices) can make use of them. As for ‘superiority’, europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy, and a civilization of markets in everything because of it – and no one else did. All human peoples can transcend the animal. But it comes at the cost of continuous reduction of the underclasses through constraints on reproduction and mating. That’s just how it is. So, no. All peoples can transcend. -
“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility the
–“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility thesis, and that it’s the distribution of talents in cooperation in a group, not individuals that produce ‘goods’. Men and women are compatible. The classes, except at the bottom, are compatible. The peoples of the world, if they internalize their own costs of domestication, are compatible. Only europeans could invent what we have invented, but any people willing to adopt those technologies (including eugenic mating practices) can make use of them. As for ‘superiority’, europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy, and a civilization of markets in everything because of it – and no one else did. All human peoples can transcend the animal. But it comes at the cost of continuous reduction of the underclasses through constraints on reproduction and mating. That’s just how it is. So, no. All peoples can transcend. -
The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in
The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in inventory and consumption? Poverty is the natural condition of man. Property and mutual insurance of it, lift us out of poverty.
THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT ‘POOR’
“poor’ evolved from pre-Latin *pau-paros “producing little; getting little,” a compound from the roots of paucus “little” (from PIE root *pau- (1) “few, little”) and parare “to produce, bring forth” (from PIE root *pere-(1) “to produce, procure”).
In other words, the original meaning of poor in proto indo european (well before the invention of money or money substitutes) was ‘one who produces very little.”
And this remains the cause of poverty. One who produces very little and therefore consumes very little.
The evolution of money requires the production of surpluses that cannot be consumed and can (must) be traded across production groups in order to obtain that which is not self produced.
Barter-price (cattle, chicken, lambs, etc) can function for certain transactions, if those items can serve as a store value (they do).
But money must be portable, have a high weight/volume to value (time savings), be unitary measure and divisible, and universally (within the trade network) liquid (in demand).
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 11:35:00 UTC
-
The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in
The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in inventory and consumption? Poverty is the natural condition of man. Property and mutual insurance of it, lift us out of poverty. THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT ‘POOR’ “poor’ evolved from pre-Latin *pau-paros “producing little; getting little,” a compound from the roots of paucus “little” (from PIE root *pau- (1) “few, little”) and parare “to produce, bring forth” (from PIE root *pere-(1) “to produce, procure”). In other words, the original meaning of poor in proto indo european (well before the invention of money or money substitutes) was ‘one who produces very little.” And this remains the cause of poverty. One who produces very little and therefore consumes very little. The evolution of money requires the production of surpluses that cannot be consumed and can (must) be traded across production groups in order to obtain that which is not self produced. Barter-price (cattle, chicken, lambs, etc) can function for certain transactions, if those items can serve as a store value (they do). But money must be portable, have a high weight/volume to value (time savings), be unitary measure and divisible, and universally (within the trade network) liquid (in demand).