—“Different peoples have a very different concept of honor. Ours is the only one that contains speaking truth in it.”—Martin Štěpán
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-17 11:55:00 UTC
Theme: Truth
-
We don’t ask you to ‘believe’ in anything. We ask you to apply the method and re
We don’t ask you to ‘believe’ in anything. We ask you to apply the method and refrain from causing harm to the physical, institutional, and informational, both private and common. And we’d prefer it if you also did your duty and demanded the same of others.
It is a method that will change you first before you change your environment and you begin to change others. You will make it your own.
And once the lightbulb goes on the world will be a much more simple and understandable place.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 18:09:00 UTC
-
HOW CAN PEOPLE USING THE SAME METHOD MAKE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS? —“I’ve noticed
HOW CAN PEOPLE USING THE SAME METHOD MAKE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS?
—“I’ve noticed some followers have slight disagreements. Is this because they are getting it wrong? Or what? Example, I’ve heard Eli explain that he disagrees that Christianity is the optimum cooperative strategy. I mean, either it is or isn’t, right? How can different people using the method ever disagree or contradict?”– by Curtus Maximus
Short answer: First, People who should know better, still get Darwin and Einstein wrong – every day. And second, we are all arguing a field of possibilities rather than just the central proposition – that field is a means of providing due diligence against your misunderstanding by deduction, inference, and free association. In other words we differ largely in which error we are trying to stop you from making (many), not in the central thesis (one).
Long answer: we are in that phase where we are applying the method to everything, but have not yet covered all the cases nor examined the consequence of the application of our judgements. At this point we will naturally have some ‘calculating’ to do.
In the example you gave, I say that christianity teaches (_contains_, not _is_) the optimum cooperative strategy WITHIN a group. This is just a general rule and it’s not possible to debate it.
We can say that (a) it is a very bad way of teaching that rule, (b) teaching it that bad way produces terrible consequences, (c) teaching that rule without limiting to kin is suicidal.
Eli is the most sophisticated person we have at the economic analysis of cooperative behaviors. There just isn’t anyone better at it. And he has such a head start that it will be hard for anyone to catch up with him.
But, when he’s making those statements I don’t know the context so I don’t know which of the points (a,b,c) he’s making.
Eli’s method is extremely pejorative. He uses that method to render extremely intolerant (weasel-proof) judgements because he’s not letting you come to your own ‘weasel-word’ conclusion. I tend to want you to come to your own conclusion so that you ‘own it’. So I will leave the doorway for weasel-words open in order to iteratively trap you so that you come to the conclusion on your own. (it’s socratic – and as you can see over the past few days, it’s what I’m doing with you.)
Usually, when reading Eli, I can simply look at the context (argument he’s refuting) and define what he’s saying. But I don’t know if I’ve ever disagreed with him. It’s pretty hard to.
So in the sense of judgement, Eli will give the LIMIT test of the argument. Where I will tend to describe the general rule. I suspect that any difference we have is in this difference between medians and limits.
Bill will use a more sensitive approach. and if you watch john mark he’s probably becoming the best of us so far in completely answering the question.
So you know, in ‘manly terms’ eli=well done, curt=medium, bill-medium rare, and John Mark = Rare.
😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 13:31:00 UTC
-
Yes, it is more work to speak truthfully. It is more work to produce that engage
Yes, it is more work to speak truthfully. It is more work to produce that engage in theft, and more work to engage in theft than parasitism.
With every increase in the incremental suppression of parasitism by ‘means I can get away with because the exchange is voluntary’ those people who create parasitism object.
When you disagree with me all you are saying is that you want to preserve your means of parasitism, or your means of exporting costs to the commons, just like any other thief or fraud.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 12:28:00 UTC
-
IN DEFENSE OF THE DEMAND FOR DUE DILIGENCE IN PUBLIC SPEECH, AND THE PUNISHMENT
IN DEFENSE OF THE DEMAND FOR DUE DILIGENCE IN PUBLIC SPEECH, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF FALSE SPEECH.
by John Mark
(must read) (central argument)
1 – It is too difficult to teach Bullsh-t detection to masses of people with heavy biases and an avg IQ of 85-105 (depending on the nation). Half or more of the population (below 105-106) cannot tell what is true or not even if they try. The solution is not teaching; it won’t work. The solution is punishment. (Law)
2 – Allowing lying allows left-instinct people to rally using lies and false promises. It’s a Dangerous thing to allow. Too dangerous.
3 – Most people will have to refrain from making public pronouncements about matters which they have not done due diligence. This would be *wonderful*.
4 – You only have the “rights” you & your friends can defend. If someone wants to defend their “right” to be wrong, they are fighting in favor of lies against truth. (I will not be joining that team.)
5 – “More free speech” has failed. Because lying is faster, cheaper, easier than telling the truth. There is a world of difference between what the Left does (arbitrary, enforcing lies) & what we propose (scientific, enforcing truth). “The way most people want to live”…the left wants to pretend lies are true; the Right benefits from truth and wants the *results* of truth. The Right is better served by enforcing truth (punishing lies) than by allowing lies or “free speech” (aka lies winning).
6 – There would be more court cases for a while and then as people figure out what the consequences of their actions will be, the # of cases will drop significantly.
– John Mark
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 12:09:00 UTC
-
WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH —“I think this is the fatal flaw of propert
WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH
—“I think this is the fatal flaw of propertarianism. It’s an unnecessary step to go this far if you already have parasite proof governance.”–Daniel
It is not a bug or a flaw but a feature and it is by design.
No, we have a higher standard of ‘lying’ – higher standard in that in matters of the commons you lie for having not done due diligence, not by intention.
We are testing whether you performed due diligence, against harm, not whether you intended to harm.
The purpose is to prevent both the originator of the lie and the propagators of the lie, just as we prevent the thief, and those who profit from the works of the thief.
We are extending the defense of property from goods and services to information.
This is necessary because desirable lies and harmful information spreads faster and more cheaply under industrialized distribution of information than true and beneficial information.
And it is by desirable lies that the first abrahamic dark age of the abrahamic religions, and the Jewish, Muslim, Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, attempt to create the second abrahamic dark age, have been created, and spread – lies.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 11:40:00 UTC
-
IT’S ALL JUST IMPLEMENTING IT NOW. Watching the talk with Augustus Invictus and
IT’S ALL JUST IMPLEMENTING IT NOW.
Watching the talk with Augustus Invictus and Richard Heathen and realizing that it’s obvious to me that propertarianism is ‘COMPLETED’. I was talking to someone this morning who said “You are finished. I can see it in your eyes. you aren’t struggling to find words or means of communicating ideas any longer.” Nick said this a bit ago so I assume he noticed first. But yeah, the cake is baked. Fork in it. Complete. Ready to go. Ready for way.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 12:24:00 UTC
-
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/49948394_10156916627572264_588867486
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/49948394_10156916627572264_5888674864629284864_n_10156916627567264.jpg Steve PenderAppeal to truth seekers to empower priests who pose as intermediates for the source of truth.Jan 14, 2019, 12:07 PMCurt DoolittleTruth or utility?Jan 14, 2019, 12:13 PMSteven JacksonReligion offers truth in the same way snake oil salesmen offers a cure.
The customer is still looking for a cure but the snake oil salesman doesn’t deliver the cure but a hope of one.
I stand by thisJan 14, 2019, 12:47 PMCurt DoolittletrueJan 14, 2019, 12:47 PMCurt Doolittleheroin dealer offers heroin.Jan 14, 2019, 12:47 PMLisa OuthwaiteSome pretty broad strokes being applied here. I’m assuming you don’t mean that there are no universal truths embedded within religion?Jan 14, 2019, 1:15 PMLisa OuthwaiteWho doesn’t love a double negative? 🤪Jan 14, 2019, 1:16 PMSteven JacksonCurt Doolittle rat experiments show that drug addiction correlates with social ostracism.
The hormones stimulated by social acceptance can also be stimulated through the use of narcotics.
Marx was literally correct when he described religion as being the opiate of the masses.
The difference between the drug peddler and the priest is that the unifying narrative of religion can be put to use to build trust and social cohesion. The priest builds social capital by writing a common hymn book so everyone sings the same song.
The drug dealer creates a demand for drugs and nothing else. He preys on low trust societies with low social cohesion and makes it worse, he is a parasite because he drains the society of social capital.
Religion falls apart when it’s lies are exposed, but many are willing to overlook the lies because of the benefit provided by living among those singing off the same sheet.Jan 14, 2019, 1:17 PMNick HeywoodNo! It ain’t!
Religion is observed, but un-scientifically explained, framework of behavioral decidability.
And usually reduces to group evolutionary reciprocity strategy.
“If you want to be a member of this group”?… “you’ll behave thus” “and decide crap according to these rules”!
“We know these principles, that govern limits, of behaviour and decisions work”! “We’ve seen ‘them’ work” “and our ancestors were successful because they adhered to them”.
Another question becomes… “what’s the goal, aim, proposed outcome”? That’s a different question, though. 🙂
Nothing at all wrong with religion. It’s natural!
As long as ya don’t wanna colonise the universe or f around with capital development, resource distribution, engineering, biology, chemistry, maths, physics’n’quantum shit etc.😁
Once you’ve developed that capability?
Religion’s no good to ya! You’ll just hurt ya’self and melt shit. 🙂Jan 14, 2019, 1:44 PMNick HeywoodUtility for the hierarchy! 🙂😉😎Jan 14, 2019, 2:00 PMSteven JacksonNick Heywood religion has always been a factor in every advanced society. The industrial revolution occurred under puritanical Protestantism and Presbyterianism. The medieval Christian monks preserved literature and science (albeit after destroying it in the early years of Christianity.) The Greek philosophers flourished under their pagan ancestor worship etc etc.
When we have dispensed with religion (a unifying narrative) we have ended up with relativism and pseudoscience. The USSR is a prime example of this, the communist narrative was destructive and couldn’t capture a second generation. The initial cohesion, gained through genocide, produced the space race and Kalashnikov. A generation later it produced only civil war, Mafia and rusting public utilities.
Similar forces destroyed the narrative in the west and we have trannys and feminism.
Religion as a means of social cohesion seems to be necessary, as knowledge has progressed, religion has evolved. We just need to evolve it to agree with what we now understand to be true. The modernists threw the baby out with the bath water when they misunderstood “God is dead”Jan 14, 2019, 2:27 PMSteven J. WoronLike the new profile pic btw…Jan 14, 2019, 3:02 PMNick HeywoodThe unifying narrative became a tyranny in and of itself. Which really f’d things up.Jan 14, 2019, 6:10 PMDylan KnowlesModern religion is not worshipping a faith, it is the worship of mammon. Reject the modern world, reject degeneracy.Jan 14, 2019, 9:27 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 11:52:00 UTC
-
NORMIE VERSION OF “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” (via Bill and Curt) Propertarianism
NORMIE VERSION OF “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?”
(via Bill and Curt)
Propertarianism is a method – it’s the completion of the scientific method, and that scientific method applied to EVERYTHING – including language, psychology, social science, economics, politics and group competitive strategies.
So while propertarianism consists of the completion of the scientific method, what results from that scientific method, is scientific law, and scientific government, which makes it possible for us to cooperate in the post industrial era.
And the benefit of scientific law and scientific government is that it ends parasitism and deceit in politics economics and law, and provides scientific solutions to the conflicts of politics economics and law.
In the broader historical sense, propertarianism completes the greco-anglo empirical program to complete the sciences, and to eliminate bias, wishful thinking, deception, superstition, idealism, and pseudoscience from the the public discourse that we call ‘the informational commons”.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 11:23:00 UTC
-
RUSSIANS HAVE A WORD FOR REALITY Bytie (бытие), Russian. This word comes from th
RUSSIANS HAVE A WORD FOR REALITY
Bytie (бытие), Russian.
This word comes from the Russian byt'(to exist). In Russian-English dictionaries this philosophical concept is translated as “being.” However, bytie (бытие) is not just life or existence, it’s the existence of an objective reality that is independent of human consciousness (cosmos, nature, matter).
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 07:18:00 UTC