Imprecision, suggestion, and demand for substitution create the impression of consensus where there is none. If you can’t state something operationally so that it is testable, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or are engaged in abrahamic sophisms.
Theme: Truth
-
For Newbs
Yes, I stir the pot, because teaching argument on the internet is like running a class in a locker room, and I can’t issue quizzes and demand homework, so the way to cause discourse is to create controversy. I know this because in marketing and advertising it is the secret to getting the public to talk about a subject and learn about it. Hence talking head shows on tv, survivor, and every other damned idiot-nonsense. And hence *controversial positioning*.
-
For Newbs
Yes, I stir the pot, because teaching argument on the internet is like running a class in a locker room, and I can’t issue quizzes and demand homework, so the way to cause discourse is to create controversy. I know this because in marketing and advertising it is the secret to getting the public to talk about a subject and learn about it. Hence talking head shows on tv, survivor, and every other damned idiot-nonsense. And hence *controversial positioning*.
-
The King of The Hill Method of Teaching Online
—“…. largest problem is your obnoxious temperament 😉”— I bitch slap ignorance. yes. It’s so I can bait man-ginas. lol But listen….. You want my job? Do you have any idea how many overconfident, ignorant, sophomoric, posturing young single male ass-wipes there are on the internet? I have developed the “King of the Hill” strategy of discourse (teaching) because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early. Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it’s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument. I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them. My role in this ‘game’ is to play king of the hill, and say ‘come get me’. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). That is why this game works. Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating. The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases. The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience. I teach argument.. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.) You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview – because I’m not very much like my online persona. This is educational entertainment and theatre. 😉
-
The King of The Hill Method of Teaching Online
—“…. largest problem is your obnoxious temperament 😉”— I bitch slap ignorance. yes. It’s so I can bait man-ginas. lol But listen….. You want my job? Do you have any idea how many overconfident, ignorant, sophomoric, posturing young single male ass-wipes there are on the internet? I have developed the “King of the Hill” strategy of discourse (teaching) because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early. Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it’s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument. I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them. My role in this ‘game’ is to play king of the hill, and say ‘come get me’. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). That is why this game works. Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating. The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases. The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience. I teach argument.. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.) You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview – because I’m not very much like my online persona. This is educational entertainment and theatre. 😉
-
THE KING OF THE HILL METHOD OF TEACHING ONLINE —“…. largest problem is your
THE KING OF THE HILL METHOD OF TEACHING ONLINE
—“…. largest problem is your obnoxious temperament 😉”—
I bitch slap ignorance. yes. It’s so I can bait man-ginas. lol
But listen….. You want my job? Do you have any idea how many overconfident, ignorant, sophomoric, posturing young single male ass-wipes there are on the internet?
I have developed the “King of the Hill” strategy of discourse (teaching) because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early.
Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it’s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument.
I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them.
My role in this ‘game’ is to play king of the hill, and say ‘come get me’. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). That is why this game works.
Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating.
The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases.
The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience.
I teach argument.. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.)
You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview – because I’m not very much like my online persona.
This is educational entertainment and theatre.
😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-18 10:01:00 UTC
-
FOR NEWBS Yes, I stir the pot, because teaching argument on the internet is like
FOR NEWBS
Yes, I stir the pot, because teaching argument on the internet is like running a class in a locker room, and I can’t issue quizzes and demand homework, so the way to cause discourse is to create controversy.
I know this because in marketing and advertising it is the secret to getting the public to talk about a subject and learn about it. Hence talking head shows on tv, survivor, and every other damned idiot-nonsense.
And hence *controversial positioning*.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-18 09:08:00 UTC
-
The Market Is a Consequence of Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, and The Independent Judiciary Common of The Common (tort) Law.
We create a market by creating sovereignty. we expand the market by incremental suppression of impositions of costs upon the investments made by others. We create private, corporate, and common assets. And we suppress impositions against them. The central problem of sovereignty is reduction of the lower classes that cannot survive in the CURRENT market order. In other words, we must genetically improve our distributions as we improve our productivity.
-
The Market Is a Consequence of Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, and The Independent Judiciary Common of The Common (tort) Law.
We create a market by creating sovereignty. we expand the market by incremental suppression of impositions of costs upon the investments made by others. We create private, corporate, and common assets. And we suppress impositions against them. The central problem of sovereignty is reduction of the lower classes that cannot survive in the CURRENT market order. In other words, we must genetically improve our distributions as we improve our productivity.
-
The Competition Between Positiva and Negativa
Logics are deflationary grammars so that we can test ourselves. They are very limited languages with very strict grammars and semantics. They serve as means of falsification. Stories allow us to search for opportunities. Via-positiva stories (meaning) vs via-negativa logics (falsification) and the truth is what survives the competition.