I don’t owe you anything, and now I wouldn’t provide something even if I did.
You’re a bad person.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-24 23:51:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2015211002560958601
Theme: Responsibility
-
I don’t owe you anything, and now I wouldn’t provide something even if I did. Yo
-
(The New Truism) “MEN WILL SACRIFICE THEIR HAPPINESS FOR THEIR FAMILY AND WOMEN
(The New Truism)
“MEN WILL SACRIFICE THEIR HAPPINESS FOR THEIR FAMILY AND WOMEN WILL SACRIFICE THEIR FAMILY FOR THEIR HAPPINESS.”Causally: It’s responsibility and capital production vs responsibility evasion and capital consumption. These are the means of obtaining status and self image for each sex.
Human behavior is reducible to a small number of primitives that always and everywhere begin with sex differences in perception, cognition, and valence.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-24 21:20:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2015172818141610488
-
I understand the feeling but Jon Bear is correct. We have tried for three presid
I understand the feeling but Jon Bear is correct. We have tried for three presidents to get europe to bear their responsibilities and they haven’t done it. We’re out of time, so Trump is forcing it. If ‘being nice’ worked then they would have been friends. (France is not a friend btw.) But if their only allies or worse, dependent allies then they are not friends.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-21 16:42:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2014015686230904881
-
WHAT DO “GOOD TIMES” CONSTITUTE? I would argue that ‘good times’ mean “mindfulne
WHAT DO “GOOD TIMES” CONSTITUTE?
I would argue that ‘good times’ mean “mindfulness amid struggle” that prevents irresponsibility for self and commons.It does not mean spendthrift hyperconsumptive hedonistic luxury to evade responsibility for cultural (formal, informal, and informational capital). (What women are demonstrating today.)
It’s another take on Aristotle’s Golden Mean. “Everything in equilibrium”. This is the lesson of Daedalus (capitalization) and Icarus (consumption).
CD 😉
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-18 18:56:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2012962253159694649
-
Rights are a property of the ingroup – the polity who defends one another’s righ
Rights are a property of the ingroup – the polity who defends one another’s rights, obligations, and inalienations.
All other ‘rights’ are wishes and nothing more.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-12 20:24:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2010810200874520790
-
I know the research. It’s my job. If you knew the research you would demonstrate
I know the research. It’s my job.
If you knew the research you would demonstrate it.
I do.
It may be my public obligation to constrain your negative influences out of your ignorance.
It’s not my job to educate you.
Wasting even these seconds on you is merely good public manners – a sacrifice for the benefit of the informational commons.
It’s no obligation when you won’t do the work yourself.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-09 18:11:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2009689600143552978
-
Under threat, self defense prevails, meaning “shoot until there is no longer a t
Under threat, self defense prevails, meaning “shoot until there is no longer a threat”.
She should have obeyed the officers, put the car in park, exited the vehicle, and submitted to arrest.
Instead she resisted arrest, sought to escape, and used her vehicle as a deadly weapon.
You are, as is common, making the mistake that people under stress in single-second windows have time for contemplation rather than reaction. They don’t.
He reacted appropriately.
She did not.
She was a belligerent activist engaging in obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, seeking to flee, and threatening an officer with a vehicle, which is under law, a deadly weapon.
In the one to two seconds he had to react, he did, in self defense.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-09 17:24:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2009677733404520460
-
Is that true? It would have been if she’d not resisted arrest and drove toward a
Is that true? It would have been if she’d not resisted arrest and drove toward an officer. But she did resist did drive at him, and thus converted a process matter into a self defense matter – and died for her arrogance and folly.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-09 17:19:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2009676452749554227
-
It’s somewhere between manslaughter and second degree attempted murder. It’s not
It’s somewhere between manslaughter and second degree attempted murder. It’s not a traffic infraction. A vehicle is considered a lethal weapon in the courts. In the moment he acted rationally in self defense.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-09 06:00:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2009505649798045980
-
Technically speaking I’m a genius by every known measure. I’m also an elitist pr
Technically speaking I’m a genius by every known measure. I’m also an elitist prig raised to take responsibility for a society in decline as it approaches the age at which all societies collapse. So I put that duty ahead of my feelings, and certainly above yours.
It won’t help to explain that the principle reason for the decline is female introgression into institutions because the female intuition is unsuitable for political scale.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-09 05:57:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2009504807988678760