Theme: Education

  • The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism

    —“Enjoying your posts”— A very kind woman 😉

    Awesome. It’s very hard for us to keep women interested, so that makes me (and the leadership) very happy. Three reasons it’s challenging: (I need a reason to post this so I’ll seize the opportunity you’ve created.   ) The general strategy of restoring the compromise between the genders that makes raising children, family, civil society, harmonious society, possible tends to attract men falsifying the excesses of marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and denialism (political correctness) when masculine men always and everywhere think in systems and politics, and women in empathy and relationships means that if we don’t find women who’ve had strong fathers and brothers, that they too often cannot translate male systematizing and political speech(aggregates), and interpret it as personal speech, or and interpersonal speech and find this offensive. Worse, we can attract men with bad experiences making it worse. SO this is why I spend time writing about male and female relationships in economic terms so that we can return to a compromise between the genders rather than a see-saw of conflcit between extremes. Worse, I teach in the masculine method of competition using king of the hill games, taking positions i agree with, disagree with, or can go other way with, or which can be interpreted by me advocating both ways. This generates lots of masculine huffing and chuffing and flexing and dominance, which is how men love to learn and will value what they learn. And very few women like to play the king of the hill game. Most women tend to referee the men instead. And that’s probably our natural dispositions., So a woman has to be able to say ‘thats just silly man talk’ the same way men say ‘thats just silly women talk’ because we’re both expressing our genetic impulses instead of working on compromise through trades. The difference is that is almost universal for masculine men to say ‘men and women engage in silly man talk, and silly women talk and that’s ok’. And for evolutionary reasons – men fear only of force not words, and women primarily concerned with words, both for their own protection from other women, and for protection of their children on many levels – including preventing them from ‘learning what they can’t yet make use of’. I think part of our transition out of the more analytic content and more into the religious, social, and political application of p-law is helping our expansion. Very few people want to understand testimonial truth – and I’m not sure how many can. lol )

  • The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism

    —“Enjoying your posts”— A very kind woman 😉

    Awesome. It’s very hard for us to keep women interested, so that makes me (and the leadership) very happy. Three reasons it’s challenging: (I need a reason to post this so I’ll seize the opportunity you’ve created.   ) The general strategy of restoring the compromise between the genders that makes raising children, family, civil society, harmonious society, possible tends to attract men falsifying the excesses of marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and denialism (political correctness) when masculine men always and everywhere think in systems and politics, and women in empathy and relationships means that if we don’t find women who’ve had strong fathers and brothers, that they too often cannot translate male systematizing and political speech(aggregates), and interpret it as personal speech, or and interpersonal speech and find this offensive. Worse, we can attract men with bad experiences making it worse. SO this is why I spend time writing about male and female relationships in economic terms so that we can return to a compromise between the genders rather than a see-saw of conflcit between extremes. Worse, I teach in the masculine method of competition using king of the hill games, taking positions i agree with, disagree with, or can go other way with, or which can be interpreted by me advocating both ways. This generates lots of masculine huffing and chuffing and flexing and dominance, which is how men love to learn and will value what they learn. And very few women like to play the king of the hill game. Most women tend to referee the men instead. And that’s probably our natural dispositions., So a woman has to be able to say ‘thats just silly man talk’ the same way men say ‘thats just silly women talk’ because we’re both expressing our genetic impulses instead of working on compromise through trades. The difference is that is almost universal for masculine men to say ‘men and women engage in silly man talk, and silly women talk and that’s ok’. And for evolutionary reasons – men fear only of force not words, and women primarily concerned with words, both for their own protection from other women, and for protection of their children on many levels – including preventing them from ‘learning what they can’t yet make use of’. I think part of our transition out of the more analytic content and more into the religious, social, and political application of p-law is helping our expansion. Very few people want to understand testimonial truth – and I’m not sure how many can. lol )

  • Why Is Curt Going Easy on Religion Now?

      The reason I’m more accommodating lately is because my work on investigating religion, education, and government is done, it’s just a matter of updating the constitution, switching our daily discourse to advocacy of that constitution and it’s solutions. I’m sorry having your sacred cows questioned so aggressively (prosecutorally) whether theological, philosophical, sophomoric, normative, or pseudoscientific was painful – but that’s what prosecutors do: falsify everything possible so that only the truth remains. Once the truth is understood, then we can search for compromises while motioning the truth between us. This is what we all need, and it’s a condition we all prefer, but we are always trying to ‘get a better deal by hook or by crook’ and sorry – everything is a reciprocal exchange.

  • Why Is Curt Going Easy on Religion Now?

      The reason I’m more accommodating lately is because my work on investigating religion, education, and government is done, it’s just a matter of updating the constitution, switching our daily discourse to advocacy of that constitution and it’s solutions. I’m sorry having your sacred cows questioned so aggressively (prosecutorally) whether theological, philosophical, sophomoric, normative, or pseudoscientific was painful – but that’s what prosecutors do: falsify everything possible so that only the truth remains. Once the truth is understood, then we can search for compromises while motioning the truth between us. This is what we all need, and it’s a condition we all prefer, but we are always trying to ‘get a better deal by hook or by crook’ and sorry – everything is a reciprocal exchange.

  • The Most Important Lesson from The Church Experience

    The most important lesson I’ve observed, and perhaps the most important, is that sitting still in church, and the social pressure of sitting still in church, no matter how hard it is, teaches us the meaning of ‘sacred’ which is ‘we have no rights of self fulfillment’. I think it is underrated, how much the respect we demonstrate for one another in religious ceremony translates to how we ALWAYS act in the commons – and I think the loss of this ‘sacredness’ and this training in the ‘submission’ by develops ‘agency’ over impulses such that we do not impose so many costs of self expression (hyper-consumption) on the commons and therefore the polity. You do know what group did this right? What one group undermined it? I do.

  • The Most Important Lesson from The Church Experience

    The most important lesson I’ve observed, and perhaps the most important, is that sitting still in church, and the social pressure of sitting still in church, no matter how hard it is, teaches us the meaning of ‘sacred’ which is ‘we have no rights of self fulfillment’. I think it is underrated, how much the respect we demonstrate for one another in religious ceremony translates to how we ALWAYS act in the commons – and I think the loss of this ‘sacredness’ and this training in the ‘submission’ by develops ‘agency’ over impulses such that we do not impose so many costs of self expression (hyper-consumption) on the commons and therefore the polity. You do know what group did this right? What one group undermined it? I do.

  • It’s going to happen again. Because you never learn and never reform. So the pri

    It’s going to happen again. Because you never learn and never reform. So the principle political movement of the 21st century is to expose you and yours, to educate, legislate and prosecute you and yours until you can never engage in organized social and political crime again. 😉

    Reply addressees: @Queranus77 @0bservationPost @ACLU

  • It’s going to happen again. Because you never learn and never reform. So the pri

    It’s going to happen again. Because you never learn and never reform. So the principle political movement of the 21st century is to expose you and yours, to educate, legislate and prosecute you and yours until you can never engage in organized social and political crime again. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 10:30:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267403201914994690

    Reply addressees: @Queranus77 @0bservationPost @ACLU

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267374486745051137

  • Oct 31, 2019, 8:09 AM —“Quoting yourself?”—Chip Sills Is there some other wa

    Oct 31, 2019, 8:09 AM

    —“Quoting yourself?”—Chip Sills

    Is there some other way of demonstrating that a body of text is an excerpt from a larger body of text, thereby informing the reader that there is more to be known if desired? Is there some reason I shouldn’t disambiguate new content from repeated content? Is there some reason that salient ideas and arguments often buried in longer works, overlooked in reading, or ignored because of length, should not be promoted to quoted excerpt such that those with less time or patience can make use of them? Is there some reason I shouldn’t include both image and text so that either can be shared depending upon the medium its shared upon? Is there some reason that I shouldn’t use these quotes (short) excerpts (longer) in image form for marketing the ideas in feeds like twitter? I thought so.

  • Oct 31, 2019, 8:09 AM —“Quoting yourself?”—Chip Sills Is there some other wa

    Oct 31, 2019, 8:09 AM

    —“Quoting yourself?”—Chip Sills

    Is there some other way of demonstrating that a body of text is an excerpt from a larger body of text, thereby informing the reader that there is more to be known if desired? Is there some reason I shouldn’t disambiguate new content from repeated content? Is there some reason that salient ideas and arguments often buried in longer works, overlooked in reading, or ignored because of length, should not be promoted to quoted excerpt such that those with less time or patience can make use of them? Is there some reason I shouldn’t include both image and text so that either can be shared depending upon the medium its shared upon? Is there some reason that I shouldn’t use these quotes (short) excerpts (longer) in image form for marketing the ideas in feeds like twitter? I thought so.