Twitter has created long form text, so I have at least limited freedom to intellectually terrorize a percentage of the public with painful undesirable truths for their own good, and with some desperation try to turn at least a few of these petty animals into sentient humans. ;)…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 17:08:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635689282462527490
Reply addressees: @nemo81886205
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635688010548228112
RT @curtdoolittle: @peaches_rhi @anniegread @Gridlad2 @FrailSkeleton “THE CRIME OF DISAPPROVAL OUT OF IGNORANCE”
I can source all claims. T…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 15:17:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635661347991048193
“THE CRIME OF DISAPPROVAL OUT OF IGNORANCE”
I can source all claims. Though it’s an extraordinary amount of work. I keep a reading and reference list for that purpose. But I have no reason to do work when there is no evidence that your disapproval is backed by sources and claims. Ergo: if you want to object, you’re welcome to do so with sources and claims, and since you did the work, I can morally respond reciprocally with work myself. Otherwise you’re trying to ‘steal’ my time by false accusation. And because you’re human, and don’t know what you’re doing is coercive and intellectually dishonest, you’ll just make nonsense arguments unless you’re sufficiently informed to hold the discussion. ie: Don’t disapprove of what you can’t argue gainst. Disapproval isn’t argument. If you can’t argue against the matter with substance then you should also understand why you shouldn’t have an opinion on the matter. And you certainly should’t urinate on other’s firehydrants uninvited if you shouldn’t even have an opinion on the matter.
In matters of truth or falsehood:
Argument: systematizing (adult, human).
-vs-
Approval/Disapproval: empathizing (child, animal)
It’s not complicated.
(And no you don’t get a participation trophy either.)
Reply addressees: @peaches_rhi @anniegread @Gridlad2 @FrailSkeleton
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 15:17:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635661336666308609
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635657174851502083
“THE CRIME OF DISAPPROVAL OUT OF IGNORANCE”
I can source all claims. Though it’s an extraordinary amount of work. I keep a reading and reference list for that purpose. But I have no reason to do work when there is no evidence that your disapproval is backed by sources and claims. Ergo: if you want to object, you’re welcome to do so with sources and claims, and since you did the work, I can morally respond reciprocally with work myself. Otherwise you’re trying to ‘steal’ my time by false accusation. And because you’re human, and don’t know what you’re doing is coercive and intellectually dishonest, you’ll just make nonsense arguments unless you’re sufficiently informed to hold the discussion. ie: Don’t disapprove of what you can’t argue gainst. Disapproval isn’t argument. If you can’t argue against the matter with substance then you should also understand why you shouldn’t have an opinion on the matter. And you certainly should’t urinate on other’s firehydrants uninvited if you shouldn’t even have an opinion on the matter.
In matters of truth or falsehood:
Argument: systematizing (adult, human).
-vs-
Approval/Disapproval: empathizing (child, animal)
It’s not complicated.
(And no you don’t get a participation trophy either.)
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 15:17:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635661336792162306
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635657174851502083
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 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
Every statement in that post is true.
Do you fear the truth?
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 11:54:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635610389139292160
Reply addressees: @dvdmike
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635540477167509506
Can you testify to my mind and feelings? (no)
I am not ‘bothered’.
You are bothered.
Feels vs Reals.
I just ‘work’.
And… experimenting on subjects using social media is my work.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 22:16:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635404461756780544
Reply addressees: @Gridlad2 @FrailSkeleton
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635404063868334081
Interesting but good try.
I work in cognitive science, truth, economics, and law – and in particular the science and logic of lying.
So, disapproval of uncomfortable truths is one of the most common lies in public discourse today.
So it’s not that I hate (it’s a foreign emotion) or care about diapproval.
I care, as a professional and moral matter, when people state disapproval to countersignal a evidentiary truth, as a means of lying and denying: the institutionalization of the otherwise female means of antisocial behavior that’s evolved slowly (by design) over the century.
So. You think you’re disapproving.
I’m stating you’re lying.
And you don’t know the difference.
And that is one of the many civic ‘devotions’ we’re trying to repair.
I’m sure you are a decent person.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @Gridlad2 @FrailSkeleton
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 21:09:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635387647299317762
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635386297618681857
Interesting but good try.
I work in cognitive science, truth, economics, and law – and in particular the science and logic of lying.
So, disapproval of uncomfortable truths is one of the most common lies in public discourse today.
So it’s not that I hate (it’s a foreign emotion) or care about diapproval.
I care, as a professional and moral matter, when people state disapproval to countersignal a evidentiary truth, as a means of lying and denying: the institutionalization of the otherwise female means of antisocial behavior that’s evolved slowly (by design) over the century.
So. You think you’re disapproving.
I’m stating you’re lying.
And you don’t know the difference.
And that is one of the many civic ‘devotions’ we’re trying to repair.
I’m sure you are a decent person.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 21:09:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635387647433531393
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635386297618681857