Theme: Reciprocity

  • WHAT DOES WOKE MEAN? Woke? It means anti-whiteness, anti-white, anti-western, an

    WHAT DOES WOKE MEAN?
    Woke? It means anti-whiteness, anti-white, anti-western, anti-national, anti-rule-of-law, anti-meritocracy, anti-reciprocity, anti-proportionality, anti-male, anti-truth.

    In other words, it’s just the newest term in the Abrahamic to Marxist Evolution of rebellion by sedition:

    The cult of envy and hatred: #marxism(class) > #neomarxism(culture) > #postmodernism (truth) > #feminism (sex) > #woke (race) > hatred sequence.

    #WokeIsHate


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-15 21:00:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1636110242135040006

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1636109112151887880

  • Again. I don’t feel. I’m not a woman. My objection is logical: reciprocity. I do

    Again. I don’t feel. I’m not a woman. My objection is logical: reciprocity.

    I don’t care about you.
    I don’t care to convince you.
    I only care about giving people who want explanations.

    Why would I invest time and effort in you?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 22:39:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635772658167021569

    Reply addressees: @peaches_rhi @anniegread @Gridlad2 @FrailSkeleton

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635735985991585792

  • Yes one needs a ‘threat’ (stick) if one fails to negotiate a reciprocal position

    Yes one needs a ‘threat’ (stick) if one fails to negotiate a reciprocal position. That’s a stick. I question whether publishing it but… we can add or remove it if necessary.

    As for ‘whiteness’
    Well, it’s a science thing.
    ‘Whiteness’ is just science.

    Natural, Common, Concurrent, Constitution and Law is just science.

    The fact that Europeans stumbled on the only sequence of institutions that would produce truth before face, and democracy, reason, then empiricism and science is an accident of history.

    But it’s not a question of supremacy, or superiority of the people, just that the group strategy and history is in fact superior because it deviates least from the laws of the universe.

    I don’t make the rules (laws) of the universe. I just observe and record them.

    But then, knowing the rules, I don’t think it’s unethical or immoral to prevent people from abusing them by attempting to rule you by alternate rules.

    In fact, if you disagree, you won’t be able to do it without demonstrating you’re unethical, immoral, or evil. 😉

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @SFrinlan @ConceptualJames


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 22:29:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635770219959316481

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635741043739054081

  • Yes one needs a ‘threat’ (stick) if one fails to negotiate a reciprocal position

    Yes one needs a ‘threat’ (stick) if one fails to negotiate a reciprocal position. That’s a stick. I question whether publishing it but… we can add or remove it if necessary.

    As for ‘whiteness’
    Well, it’s a science thing.
    ‘Whiteness’ is just science.

    Natural, Common, Concurrent, Constitution and Law is just science.

    The fact that Europeans stumbled on the only sequence of institutions that would produce truth before face, and democracy, reason, then empiricism and science is an accident of history.

    But it’s not a question of supremacy, or superiority of the people, just that the group strategy and history is in fact superior because it deviates least from the laws of the universe.

    I don’t make the rules (laws) of the universe. I just observe and record them.

    But then, knowing the rules, I don’t think it’s unethical or immoral to prevent people from abusing them by attempting to rule you by alternate rules.

    In fact, if you disagree, you won’t be able to do it without demonstrating you’re unethical, immoral, or evil. 😉

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 22:29:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635770220085116932

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635741043739054081

  • MOTIVE: “SOCIAL SCIENCE BY KING OF THE HILL GAMES” –“you don’t respond with evi

    MOTIVE: “SOCIAL SCIENCE BY KING OF THE HILL GAMES”

    –“you don’t respond with evidence”–

    Let me correct you: I only respond with explanation and evidence to arguments.
    (a) Reciprocity = morality (and ethics, manners)
    (b) I responded to each disapproval reciprocally. See?
    (c) to falsify a proposition, one must propose a counter argument, demonstrating one has the knowledge to disagree – not accuse without demonstrating the knowledge to disagree. Emotional appeals and accusations are not counter-arguments. They’re admissions of ignorance.
    (d) These accusations are based on disapproval (emotion) not reason and argument. There is no counter to argue against. One need not seek to prove one’s point without a counter-point to demonstrate it’s possible to educate.
    (e) Responding in kind, explaining that it’s not an argument, only animal instinct, and test for how long it takes for the accuser to make a case (argument) that *isn’t* disapproval but contradiction.
    (f) Even your complaint is disapproval, not contradiction to the argument stated (which I an easily defend). I never needed to defend the argument.
    (g) Find a ‘challenge’ and respond. (First one I’ve seen was just moments ago, when someone gave examples of idividuals prewar rather than the set off women postwar. It’s not logical, but it’s at least a ‘challenge’.
    (h) What’s demonstrated by this process is what I want to demonstrate.
    (i) And I (we) do manage to ‘filter’ through and discover a few sentient humans along the way.
    (j) So, I’m not (we are not) trying to convince ‘bots’ (children) to mature into rational competent adults sufficient for particpation in participatory governance. We are demonstrating that only a tiny fraction are capable of participatory government, and only then after the education that their ancestors recieved as members of the upper middle and upper classes, who daily suffered the emotionalism, magical thinking, and amorality, immorality, and deceit of the common people.
    (k) In participatory government, you get the government you deserve, because it wil, it must, eventually reflect you – individually and collectively. And at present. As always. It does. I’m just doing basic research and development and working on reformation of the law, constitution, policy, and education to compensate for it – and make adulthood a litte more common for us all.

    Quite a few lessons in debate in there.
    Cheers

    cc: @expectnotmuch and @FrailSkeleton

    Reply addressees: @FrailSkeleton


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 15:00:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635657280963133440

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634290828213469184


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    A POSITIVE MESSAGE FOR WOMEN?

    –“Almost no one on the right has a positive message for women.”– @FrailSkeleton

    Hmmm. Well, is that true?
    We’re running an experiment.
    One of the most dangerous in history.
    – We have learned that women in their evolutionary roles are priceless. We have learned that women in the economy is a false return on rate of reproduction.
    – We have learned that the inclusion of women into economy and polity, at the cost of reproduction, ends in genetic decline. And our IQ is heading to second-world threshold within the next few years.
    – We have learned that women do not net contribute to the labor pool as much as displace men out of the labor pool (labor participation rates) in those fields that are least damaging to our bodies.
    – We have learned that the totality of the contribution of women to the economy is absorbed by taxation. And because of it we require two income households.
    – We have learned that even by participating in the economy the only net taxpayers are white men over 35, yet 70% of government services are consumed by women. But men are not taken care of by the state as are women and suicide in vast numbers in late middle age.
    – We have learned women in a polity are, as expected, biased to empathizing at interpersonal scale, and naturally incompetent to, and resistant to, systematizing at political scale.
    – We have learned that it destroyed the intersexual cooperation between the sexes, the family as the fist institution of reproductive, social, economic, and political organization.
    – We have learned that nearly everything we were warned about women in politics was true.
    – We have learned that suicide is increasing in both sexes at different ages, that everyone is de-socialized, that society means children, that the production of families is the only thing that makes us relatively equal with equal incentives.
    – We have learned that the consequences are horrific.

    So when you say the right has nothing positive to say about women. What I think you mean is, we have nothing positive to say about women acting as if they are men, and failing at it. And we have plenty of positive things to say about women when they act as women, and succeed at it. So we’d prefer they didn’t fail at being men AND fail at being women too. And instead succeeded at being women. So we can succeed at being men. And together we can succeed as families. And as families produce the next generation as good or better than the last.

    (That’s the quotable bit there at the end.)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1634290828213469184

  • MOTIVE: “SOCIAL SCIENCE BY KING OF THE HILL GAMES” –“you don’t respond with evi

    MOTIVE: “SOCIAL SCIENCE BY KING OF THE HILL GAMES”

    –“you don’t respond with evidence”–

    Let me correct you: I only respond with explanation and evidence to arguments.
    (a) Reciprocity = morality (and ethics, manners)
    (b) I responded to each disapproval reciprocally. See?
    (c) to falsify a proposition, one must propose a counter argument, demonstrating one has the knowledge to disagree – not accuse without demonstrating the knowledge to disagree. Emotional appeals and accusations are not counter-arguments. They’re admissions of ignorance.
    (d) These accusations are based on disapproval (emotion) not reason and argument. There is no counter to argue against. One need not seek to prove one’s point without a counter-point to demonstrate it’s possible to educate.
    (e) Responding in kind, explaining that it’s not an argument, only animal instinct, and test for how long it takes for the accuser to make a case (argument) that *isn’t* disapproval but contradiction.
    (f) Even your complaint is disapproval, not contradiction to the argument stated (which I an easily defend). I never needed to defend the argument.
    (g) Find a ‘challenge’ and respond. (First one I’ve seen was just moments ago, when someone gave examples of idividuals prewar rather than the set off women postwar. It’s not logical, but it’s at least a ‘challenge’.
    (h) What’s demonstrated by this process is what I want to demonstrate.
    (i) And I (we) do manage to ‘filter’ through and discover a few sentient humans along the way.
    (j) So, I’m not (we are not) trying to convince ‘bots’ (children) to mature into rational competent adults sufficient for particpation in participatory governance. We are demonstrating that only a tiny fraction are capable of participatory government, and only then after the education that their ancestors recieved as members of the upper middle and upper classes, who daily suffered the emotionalism, magical thinking, and amorality, immorality, and deceit of the common people.
    (k) In participatory government, you get the government you deserve, because it wil, it must, eventually reflect you – individually and collectively. And at present. As always. It does. I’m just doing basic research and development and working on reformation of the law, constitution, policy, and education to compensate for it – and make adulthood a litte more common for us all.

    Quite a few lessons in debate in there.
    Cheers

    cc: @expectnotmuch and @FrailSkeleton


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 15:00:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635657281369956352

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634290828213469184


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    A POSITIVE MESSAGE FOR WOMEN?

    –“Almost no one on the right has a positive message for women.”– @FrailSkeleton

    Hmmm. Well, is that true?
    We’re running an experiment.
    One of the most dangerous in history.
    – We have learned that women in their evolutionary roles are priceless. We have learned that women in the economy is a false return on rate of reproduction.
    – We have learned that the inclusion of women into economy and polity, at the cost of reproduction, ends in genetic decline. And our IQ is heading to second-world threshold within the next few years.
    – We have learned that women do not net contribute to the labor pool as much as displace men out of the labor pool (labor participation rates) in those fields that are least damaging to our bodies.
    – We have learned that the totality of the contribution of women to the economy is absorbed by taxation. And because of it we require two income households.
    – We have learned that even by participating in the economy the only net taxpayers are white men over 35, yet 70% of government services are consumed by women. But men are not taken care of by the state as are women and suicide in vast numbers in late middle age.
    – We have learned women in a polity are, as expected, biased to empathizing at interpersonal scale, and naturally incompetent to, and resistant to, systematizing at political scale.
    – We have learned that it destroyed the intersexual cooperation between the sexes, the family as the fist institution of reproductive, social, economic, and political organization.
    – We have learned that nearly everything we were warned about women in politics was true.
    – We have learned that suicide is increasing in both sexes at different ages, that everyone is de-socialized, that society means children, that the production of families is the only thing that makes us relatively equal with equal incentives.
    – We have learned that the consequences are horrific.

    So when you say the right has nothing positive to say about women. What I think you mean is, we have nothing positive to say about women acting as if they are men, and failing at it. And we have plenty of positive things to say about women when they act as women, and succeed at it. So we’d prefer they didn’t fail at being men AND fail at being women too. And instead succeeded at being women. So we can succeed at being men. And together we can succeed as families. And as families produce the next generation as good or better than the last.

    (That’s the quotable bit there at the end.)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1634290828213469184

  • What rules? The universe, particles, elements, geology, biology, our genes, our

    What rules? The universe, particles, elements, geology, biology, our genes, our morphology make the rules. They’re called laws of nature. Of which that set we call natural law consists of the laws of cooperation that mirror the physical laws. If you had studied say physics or economics you’d understand entropy, equilibration, reciprocity, and full accounting, and grasp that anything you DON”T do means someone else ends up doing it. We call that externalization. Or more specifically: privatizing commons, and socializing losses into the commons. Or more correctly: moral crime.

    Reply addressees: @KiwiBreeder


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 20:09:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635372656747769885

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635371112363327489

  • What rules? The universe, particles, elements, geology, biology, our genes, our

    What rules? The universe, particles, elements, geology, biology, our genes, our morphology make the rules. They’re called laws of nature. Of which that set we call natural law consists of the laws of cooperation that mirror the physical laws. If you had studied say physics or economics you’d understand entropy, equilibration, reciprocity, and full accounting, and grasp that anything you DON”T do means someone else ends up doing it. We call that externalization. Or more specifically: privatizing commons, and socializing losses into the commons. Or more correctly: moral crime.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 20:09:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635372656877793288

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635371112363327489

  • Sorry Meredith; I don’t make the rules. I just look at incentives and consequenc

    Sorry Meredith;
    I don’t make the rules.
    I just look at incentives and consequences.
    The question is whether you contribute to commons.
    You call it thinkingn for yourselves, but what you mean is thinking selfishly and empathically and not systematically. Men do the opposite. We evovled these cognitive differences before we developed language and reason. And we have those brains and bodies.
    It doesn’t matter if you think you’re right, or if your instincts and intuitions feel right, if the consequences of doing so are a matter of human survival.
    All female instincts and intuitions without the responsibility of children, appear to result in hyperconsumption and hyperselfishness and evasion of responsiblity for the commons, at the cost of society and polity, and population necessary for civilization.
    Men can live comfortably on almost nothing. We built civilization to attract and maintain women so that we could obtain sex, affection, and care (and status).
    Women are checking out of marriage and childrearing, and men are checking out of society economy and politics and the result is playing out as we’d expect it would.
    Sorry, but for all intents and purposes we’ve produced mass sterilization.
    And the economy of redistribution depends on that not happening. Look at japan and south korea now, and china tomorrow, and germany thereafter.
    You aren’t ‘thinking’
    You’re just feeling.

    Reply addressees: @KiwiBreeder


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 18:53:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635353369018527745

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635347435072679936

  • Sorry Meredith; I don’t make the rules. I just look at incentives and consequenc

    Sorry Meredith;
    I don’t make the rules.
    I just look at incentives and consequences.
    The question is whether you contribute to commons.
    You call it thinkingn for yourselves, but what you mean is thinking selfishly and empathically and not systematically. Men do the opposite. We evovled these cognitive differences before we developed language and reason. And we have those brains and bodies.
    It doesn’t matter if you think you’re right, or if your instincts and intuitions feel right, if the consequences of doing so are a matter of human survival.
    All female instincts and intuitions without the responsibility of children, appear to result in hyperconsumption and hyperselfishness and evasion of responsiblity for the commons, at the cost of society and polity, and population necessary for civilization.
    Men can live comfortably on almost nothing. We built civilization to attract and maintain women so that we could obtain sex, affection, and care (and status).
    Women are checking out of marriage and childrearing, and men are checking out of society economy and politics and the result is playing out as we’d expect it would.
    Sorry, but for all intents and purposes we’ve produced mass sterilization.
    And the economy of redistribution depends on that not happening. Look at japan and south korea now, and china tomorrow, and germany thereafter.
    You aren’t ‘thinking’
    You’re just feeling.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 18:53:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635353369165307904

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635347435072679936