Israeli (self) vs other (host) ethics is a continuation of ghetto ethics (one standard for you and one for me) – western ethics requires reciprocity. We hear (((arguments))) assuming reciprocity. (((They))) make (((arguments))) assuming reciprocity. That is why we are fooled, every day, time and time again by (((pilpul))) – we are the only high trust civilization that metaphysically assumes reciprocity, and therefore we are we are uniquely vulnerable to (((deception))), just as we are far less vulnerable to violence.
Theme: Deception
-
Why Westerners Are Susceptible To Ethical Duplicity
Israeli (self) vs other (host) ethics is a continuation of ghetto ethics (one standard for you and one for me) – western ethics requires reciprocity. We hear (((arguments))) assuming reciprocity. (((They))) make (((arguments))) assuming reciprocity. That is why we are fooled, every day, time and time again by (((pilpul))) – we are the only high trust civilization that metaphysically assumes reciprocity, and therefore we are we are uniquely vulnerable to (((deception))), just as we are far less vulnerable to violence. -
WHY WESTERNERS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO ETHICAL DUPLICITY Israeli (self) vs other (hos
WHY WESTERNERS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO ETHICAL DUPLICITY
Israeli (self) vs other (host) ethics is a continuation of ghetto ethics (one standard for you and one for me) – western ethics requires reciprocity. We hear (((arguments))) assuming reciprocity. (((They))) make (((arguments))) assuming reciprocity. That is why we are fooled, every day, time and time again by (((pilpul))) – we are the only high trust civilization that metaphysically assumes reciprocity, and therefore we are we are uniquely vulnerable to (((deception))), just as we are far less vulnerable to violence.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 09:42:00 UTC
-
And some people never make arguments. Just engage in ridicule, shaming, rallying
And some people never make arguments. Just engage in ridicule, shaming, rallying and gossip. lol 😉 https://t.co/CSEWmeUfjR
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 04:23:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973414183596384256
Reply addressees: @ergo_praxis @nathancofnas
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973413501195767809
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/973413501195767809
-
I mean, we blame Marx for 100M dead, but pseudoscience, propaganda, and justific
I mean, we blame Marx for 100M dead, but pseudoscience, propaganda, and justificationism begin with Rousseau and Kant.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 04:17:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973412658937556992
Reply addressees: @ergo_praxis @nathancofnas
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973410156099833858
IN REPLY TO:
@ergo_praxis
@curtdoolittle @nathancofnas >Kant
>Counter-enlightenment
>Correct
This is what reactionaries ACTUALLY believe.Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973410156099833858
-
20 – In other words, you illustrate that he is correct, by demonstrating your us
20 – In other words, you illustrate that he is correct, by demonstrating your use that form of argument – critique: (pseudoscientific, psudorational, pseudo historical) ridicule, shaming, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-12 12:38:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973176347920039936
Reply addressees: @nathancofnas
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
IN REPLY TO:
@nathancofnas
My analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s pseudoscience: https://t.co/eRfp6B8g0e
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
-
18 – Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Pseudo-historicism (the debunking of
18 – Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Pseudo-historicism (the debunking of which is my occupation) are called ‘Fictionalisms’. Pseudoscience requires that one claim he relies on the scientific method, while not employing its constraints. He does not do that.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-12 12:31:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973174593258246150
Reply addressees: @nathancofnas
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
IN REPLY TO:
@nathancofnas
My analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s pseudoscience: https://t.co/eRfp6B8g0e
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
-
17 – one can make excuses for anything. That is the whole point of the study of
17 – one can make excuses for anything. That is the whole point of the study of intellectual history. We don’t invent philosophy first. We discover opportunities for individual, familial, class, and group gain – and make excuses for seizing them with moralizing and mythos.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-12 12:27:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973173691008856064
Reply addressees: @nathancofnas
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
IN REPLY TO:
@nathancofnas
My analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s pseudoscience: https://t.co/eRfp6B8g0e
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
-
16 – But to engage in (postmodern) denialism is rather … another example of at
16 – But to engage in (postmodern) denialism is rather … another example of attempts to deny the science. Technological history whether physical, institutional, legal, philosophical, or literary is possible to (relatively easily) disassemble into cause and effect.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-12 12:26:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973173283754528769
Reply addressees: @nathancofnas
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
IN REPLY TO:
@nathancofnas
My analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s pseudoscience: https://t.co/eRfp6B8g0e
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
-
6 – But the by the 1960’s it was no longer intellectually possible to hold to Ma
6 – But the by the 1960’s it was no longer intellectually possible to hold to Marxist economcis and history, Boazian anthropology, Fruedian psychology, or frankfurt school revisionism. And the French (originators of the counter-enlightenments) supplied Postmodernism.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-12 12:01:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973167086213259265
Reply addressees: @nathancofnas
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
IN REPLY TO:
@nathancofnas
My analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s pseudoscience: https://t.co/eRfp6B8g0e
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688