So, the way we reform debate, is not to assume the best of the opposing party, but to test their statements for involuntary transfers.
It’s a more elaborate version of ‘follow the money’. Except, we’re looking for property-en-toto.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 11:57:00 UTC
Truth: Laundering Error, Bias, Imaginary Content, Wishful Thinking, and Deceit from our free associations, hypothesis, theories, and laws.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 10:25:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616553188599140352
Aspie-Twit Seb Ortiz is off his meds again and calling me a Nazi apparently. I suppose the fact that he basically lied then stole $2,000 from me when I was being charitable friend to a man in desperate need. But then, you know, it’s just more evidence that he has no argument to stand on. And he’s evidence of the magnetism that rothbardianism has for social rejects. Now Seb. Be a nice little aspie and take your meds. Lay in the sun. And enjoy life a bit.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-29 10:43:00 UTC
RT @RealJamesWoods: The Left will tolerate no dissent. Convert or be destroyed (shunned, humiliated, forcefully unemployed, etc.) http://t.…
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-29 04:02:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/615369645944664064
[W]hy do people increase radicalism when confronted with the failure of their ideology? Because they do not hold positions rationally, but to justify their intuitions, and their intuitions exist to advance their reproductive strategies (signals). And so they will fight to defend those signals at all costs, consistently escalating to the point of violence if necessary. Becuase one’s self-image and social status are one’s property. So one defends them accordingly. People change their positions only when they can both no longer see a successful use of their prior strategy, and they can now see how to use a new narrative to achieve their reproductive strategies. You can see this not only in individuals, but the broader political phenomenon.
[W]hy do people increase radicalism when confronted with the failure of their ideology? Because they do not hold positions rationally, but to justify their intuitions, and their intuitions exist to advance their reproductive strategies (signals). And so they will fight to defend those signals at all costs, consistently escalating to the point of violence if necessary. Becuase one’s self-image and social status are one’s property. So one defends them accordingly. People change their positions only when they can both no longer see a successful use of their prior strategy, and they can now see how to use a new narrative to achieve their reproductive strategies. You can see this not only in individuals, but the broader political phenomenon.
“Where does a memeplex based upon pathological altruism come from? And better yet, how to stop it?”—Ed Herzog
[R]eally great question. And it’s not that hard to deconstruct into reproductive intuitions. We use contributory commons more than any other group on earth. So, it comes from: (1) Indo-European Heroism; (Uniqueness of the west) (2) Status from Contribution to the Commons, and;(3) Obtaining Signals, even Self-Signals of Conspicuous Consumption using “other people’s money”. Progressives tend to be less attractive mates (and it plays out in relationship statistics) so they compensate for reproductive inferiority by demonstrating verbal ‘plumage’ that they’re generous – albeit with other people’s cultural, institutional, genetic, and money capital. We North Sea Peoples are more vulnerable to it. It’s likely because it’s partly genetic. Others encourage it because it advances their power base, and relative status by declining ours. We stopped policing liars when we added women to the franchise. Between puritans, women, and jews, and the excuse of blacks, they were able to use numbers to weaken us enough that the Catholics and Jews could open the floodgates and turn the west into Brazil/India. That’s your answer. As far as I know that is a necessary and sufficient answer. And I suspect it will withstand the test of time.
“Where does a memeplex based upon pathological altruism come from? And better yet, how to stop it?”—Ed Herzog
[R]eally great question. And it’s not that hard to deconstruct into reproductive intuitions. We use contributory commons more than any other group on earth. So, it comes from: (1) Indo-European Heroism; (Uniqueness of the west) (2) Status from Contribution to the Commons, and;(3) Obtaining Signals, even Self-Signals of Conspicuous Consumption using “other people’s money”. Progressives tend to be less attractive mates (and it plays out in relationship statistics) so they compensate for reproductive inferiority by demonstrating verbal ‘plumage’ that they’re generous – albeit with other people’s cultural, institutional, genetic, and money capital. We North Sea Peoples are more vulnerable to it. It’s likely because it’s partly genetic. Others encourage it because it advances their power base, and relative status by declining ours. We stopped policing liars when we added women to the franchise. Between puritans, women, and jews, and the excuse of blacks, they were able to use numbers to weaken us enough that the Catholics and Jews could open the floodgates and turn the west into Brazil/India. That’s your answer. As far as I know that is a necessary and sufficient answer. And I suspect it will withstand the test of time.
LEFTISTISM: DISHONEST AUTHORITARIANISM
—“When more and more people are forcibly pushed under the same tent of universalisms, a lot of people will seem radical”— Michael D Haas
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 07:07:00 UTC
WHY DO PEOPLE INCREASINGLY HOLD MORE RADICAL POSITIONS?
Why do people increase radicalism when confronted with the failure of their ideology?
Because they do not hold positions rationally, but to justify their intuitions, and their intuitions exist to advance their reproductive strategies (signals). And so they will fight to defend those signals at all costs, consistently escalating to the point of violence if necessary.
Becuase one’s self-image and social status are one’s property. So one defends them accordingly.
People change their positions only when they can both no longer see a successful use of their prior strategy, and they can now see how to use a new narrative to achieve their reproductive strategies.
You can see this not only in individuals, but the broader political phenomenon.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 04:15:00 UTC