Really the plural is "eight-foots" because octopedus is just "eight feet" but you're successfully attempting to sound pretentious by saying it in someone else's words instead of your own.
Of course technically eight-foots have no feet at all, only arms. Hence, successfully calling it the incorrect pretentious name.
The pre-bureaucrat name for the eight-foot is devilfish, by the way. So there's that too.
I should really stop expecting it to be.
I find nobody on the internet is genuinely having fun. At best you have schadenfreude, e.g. trolling. It's "fun" in the addictive/bullying sense. It's not about making yourself feel good, it's about making someone else feel bad.
Nobody on the internet is genuinely trying to get work done. If something requires any real discipline, it will not occur. Self-reflection is absolutely verboten.
No wonder everyone on the internet has imposter syndrome.
What's left? Wasting time. One gigantic waste of time.
What actual games can you play on internet fora? Mafia? So, the game about lying? Great. Awesome.
You can play the ninja tower game on twitter, I suppose.
Sometimes there's pun competitions?
....and that's it. Nobody on the internet is playful. Paratelia-negative.
What projects have been launched via internet meetings? Surely there's one or two, but they sucked. I haven't heard of them and you haven't either.
It's hard to even get folks to share personal stories with the identifying details stripped. Anyone: "Tell me about yourself." Internet: "No. P.S. Fuck you."
E.g. developing a canon doesn't need a budget. A group could come together and agree on an orthodoxy. Don't though; requires discipline and self-reflection. Not to mention submitting to hierarchy. Definitely can't do that.
The exception
that proves the rule: it's not work, because you're not being paid, and
it's not play, because you have to follow a blueprint. The end product
is a video which is less than ten minutes long, and the creation has no ongoing use. Minecraft buildings are non-interactive.
Social media is anti-social. You can't even chat in such a way as to
build a relationship. On the internet, "authentic" means you're supposed
to be allowed to be as rude as possible, and it's the other person's fault for being repulsed. Hey Einsteins, consider avoiding deliberate antagonization...
Faking a society is both.
Imagine roleplaying a military group in an MMORPG. E.g. holding world-PVP events in World of Warcraft. Both play and discipline. Doesn't exactly have a high bar of entry. Never happens.
Sociological research in general has never been easier. You can experimentally test any sociological theory you like, using minimal resources aside from your own virtues.
The ""4 fun"" guys can't do it, because it requires following something other than their instantaneous impulse. (Ref: Plato. Heck, they won't even try a game that's not immediately appealing.)
The ""serious"" internet denizens can't do it, because it's all play and games; Minecraft is a good platform. Undoubtedly the highest priority for a ""serious"" person is their appearances, not their substantial actions. Clearly. How are you supposed to know they're ""serious"" if they don't spend 100% of their time signalling how ""serious"" they are? You might forget!
They're not telic either. There's no purpose here. If they define a goal they've discriminated between success and failure, and that means they might fail. Too afraid to do that. School status: well-schooled.
Though as I often mention, personnel is policy. They must already have been well-schooled or they would never have submitted to being explicitly schooled. It probably has a mere marginal effect.
A very simple game: come up with synonyms.
Oh I guess that explains why nobody can play. If you play without putting anyone down, what are you doing? You're showing off. That's why it feels good; you're displaying your own glory. If you show off, someone will Envy you. And that's not what a good Fascist does, now is it?
Personnel is policy, and the California internet is internet for Fascists.
Overall I like Plato's cave as an allegory, but it's inaccurate in several respects. The classic is the fact that truth is far more like darkness than light, though this plays havoc with the lovely metaphor of Plato's sunburn...
A more serious error is identifying the shadows as beliefs instead of the population themselves. The mortals of Plato's cave don't see the shadows, they are the shadows. They can survive neither the darkness nor the light.
In the darkness, they become invisible, indistinguishable. They become a difference of no difference. With no end to a shadow, there is no beginning.
Outside in the sun, a fire casts no shadows. They become washed out, invisible, etc.
If you mistakenly try to drag away one of the poor "misguided" fools, you will end up pawing uselessly at shadows. Your irresponsible meddling will "help" no-one. Maybe you'll get some bemused shadow-puppeteers.
Even if you somehow hack the situation and grab a shadow, naturally they will mightily resist being moved any distance from the false fires which give them life.
Another way to kill shadow-puppets is to drag one of the shadow-puppeteers away from their fires.
https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/GraniRau/status/1586229439230136320
"If 10000 crazed and hungry rats attacked one genius bodybuilder who do you think would win?"
Then all remaining bodybuilders would buy anti-rat technology, and the rats would lose every time thereafter. Unless the bodybuilders were feeling particularly merciful or magnanimous, they would return the damage with interest. They would go on offence. There would be a rat pogrom resulting in precipitous decline in rat population.
https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/GraniRau/status/1586232927813263361
"We should all act like starving rats"
.......
I primarily see morality used as a defection-positive tool which obscures the accounting.
If something is good-ingroup you should do it regardless of the costs. If something is bad-outgroup you should avoid it even if it costs you and your group nothing. Right? Yeah, right.
As I wrote previously, universal morality is childish. Perhaps someone will tell you a movie is "good" or "bad." If that's all you can get out of them, they are a child, regardless of their chronological age. Their thoughts are nearly as useful as they are sophisticated. The evaluation is almost worth the time you spent hearing about it.
If someone is not a child, see if they use qualifiers. Good for, rather than good per se. "If you want X, then tool/technique Y is useful."
Otherwise, they are trying to cheat you. They don't want you to do the accounting, because if you do the accounting, you will realize they're pulling a scam. At best it's narcissistic ego-fluffing. They feel insecure and need constant flattery. More likely they're trying to snatch your wallet while you're distracted by oughts. (Ref: Hume.) They want you to pay the costs because you're paying the costs to them.
All goals can be evaluated by the costs and benefits. It is not difficult to state. "This game's easy mode will let you complete the game more quickly, but is less satisfying." What you find most valuable is up to you, not them. "This blog author is always concise and correct, but speaks of shallow topics." "This author is highly verbose and often confused, but has occasional deep insights." What do you want? What do you need? There is no author who is inherently canon or specifically not-canon. No author is universally a valuable read.
If they avoid stating costs and benefits, they are trying to trick you. A snow job. A smokescreen. Muddying the waters.
Logic is accounting. If they thought you would genuinely find the author valuable, they could simply list the costs and benefits, you would agree with them, and they would successfully persuade you to read that author. They are using rhetoric like universal morality and camouflaged versions such as a 'canon' precisely because they don't think you find it valuable. It's not merely illogical, it is a confession of deviant motive. If they don't mention the costs, you can safely conclude the costs are the opposite of whatever they're trying to imply.
Michaelangelo was a φαγγωτ, which means the Sistine ceiling was him drawing porn for himself in broad daylight.
Notice how Adam is drawn as a chad and God is drawn as a simp? Do the green line test, fam. Gee, what kind of person likes to portray the divine as having lower status than the mortal? Truly, a mystery for the ages.
Is the Church incompetent and just let itself be vandalized like that, or is it in fact φαγγωτρυ-positive? (In either case, the solution is lustration. Fire every single last one.) They weren't drawn rock-hard only because he knew he couldn't get away with it.
We can't even say the Gay Sistine Whorehouse is a weird fluke. The only thing that makes this an outlier is that Michaelangelo learned to draw well. (If had turned his skills toward something other than Satanic degeneracy, it would have been spiffy neato.)
The true esoteric history is not even remotely like black government history.
The point of studying morality is to figure out what is and isn't a crime. E.g. the Moldbug position is that everything legal is not a crime and everything illegal is a crime. The Church position is that everything Jehova or Yeshua forbids is a crime, and everything Yeshua or Jehovah allows is not a crime. Socrates was interested in justice, not merely criminal justice, but nevertheless it's the same puzzle.
Universal morality is an oxymoron, but defection and cooperation are real.
Defection is always a crime, and cooperation is always not a crime. If cooperation is illegal, the law is unjust. If the law defends defectors, the law is unjust. It is not only possible, but easy, to define crimes without reference to mortal law.
As I've written before, all forms of defection destroy the wealth they're trying to seize. If you can't reasonably control the creation of your labour, you don't create it in the first place. An unjust society becomes poorer over time until it cannot afford to sustain itself. A just society becomes wealthier and more powerful over time, and the more just it is, the faster this occurs.
Sadly this is technology-dependent. Higher technology can support a more-unjust society, which tends to reward too-unjust societies when they get a technology shock. They then attribute this increase in wealth to their unjust black government. The cancer becomes better-defended instead of worse, and grows until it strangles the host.
As per Socrates, so-called evil is in fact ignorance. Among a rational population, cooperation is self-reinforcing and defection is self-defeating. It is always rational to resist defection, and it's always possible to do more damage to the defector than they would gain from the defection. It's always possible to make defection unprofitable. Likewise, even if the deviant is suitably tricksy or the population is suitably servile, the traitor would gain more total wealth if they cooperated. Defecting on cooperators is plain stupid.
E.g. if someone wants to tax your wheat field, and you can't prevent them from taking it, burn the wheat field so there's nothing for them to take. Ideally, if you can't reasonably wall off the field to prevent the necessity, don't sow wheat in the first place; secure your shit.
Conspecific defection is necessarily parasite behaviour, relying on stealth and trickery. Don't rip your skin off and then complain about infections. Since defection can always be rendered unprofitable, the defector must convince you to forgo defending yourself.
In present Fascist countries securing yourself is downright easy and cheap. Perhaps in past Malthusian countries it was less inexpensive, but the logic suggests that it shouldn't have been. All governments have an element of the consent of the governed, or at least the resignation of the governed. If the citizens do not broadly consent to be subjugated, the government cannot afford to force the issue. Even individual dissidents cannot be brought to heel unless they deliberately antagonize the government or its supine subjects. Defection is stupid and it is implemented by the stupid, blind, and easily tricked.
"What makes the provincial critic so grimly, hilariously terrible
is that he she imagines himself herself not just equal to the wits of the
metropolis, but vastly superior. Is it even possible to respond?"
"I may have no idea about anything except for the fact that you give off short man vibes"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/clairlemon/status/1577954338017751040
"Shall
the man of letters reply: “Excuse me, ‘Dr. Lexus Lehmann,’ but I am
resolutely heterosexual—as if it mattered—and ‘my shit,’ as you call
it, is anything but ‘all retarded’?”"
I suspect this sort of thing is self-hypnosis. The woman goes, "Oh crap that's hot, oh crap I can't be attracted to this, I'ma pretend he's short until I believe it."
Bonus: you can see this strategy even works sometimes. Recall that women are catastrophically bad judges of character. They literally have no idea what you're like, often not even after thousands of hours of interaction. They don't know character, but they do know [the lady doth protest too much]. "I'm not short!"
That and Lehmann is clearly starved for masculine energy and is trying to provoke a man into invading her life.
They say women are socially skilled; don't believe them. Their schemes work when a man takes pity on her and allows her to think it worked. She so earnestly believes she did her best...do you have the heart to let her smile turn crestfallen?
The insight of Dr. Lexus does leave much to be desired. I have indeed found brighter things floating in the toilet. I have called [free speech] the art of pooping in the common well, but perhaps that was overly optimistic. Manure can be used as fertilizer, by contrast...
If we are to call a spade a spade, it is the Intellectual Dim Web.
Acting is the combination of two innate traits: empathy and imagination.
Step 1: empathize with the person you want to portray yourself as.
Step 2: imagine how they would behave.
Step 3: copy your own imagination.
Cheat: if you've seen it in person, you can check your work by comparing your imagination to your memory, and then copy your memory instead of the imagination.
There doesn't seem to be any training arc. Either you do the steps and it works immediately, or you can't and it doesn't.
However, morality opposes accounting.
Morality is a set of simple rules for simple minds who can't do the math.
Deontology as midwittery. (The low wit doesn't into the rules, never mind the math. They just do what they're told or get jailed.)
More precisely, science opposes religion when the religion is untrue. False religions are rebellion against Reality and thus Satanic by intrinsic nature.
https://www.unz.com/aanglin/tucker-carlson-just-gave-a-political-speech-in-iowa-like-hes-running-for-president/#comment-5451797
The solution is this: EEOC is banditry. It's piracy. You have to secure your business against the EEOC because there's no amount of profit that's worth putting up with EEOC guidelines. Whatever you have to do to exclude EEOC power, you do it.
Treat it like bad weather. If the rain can get in, you don't stop and say, "Eh, good enough," you keep building until the rain can't get in. If someone proposes a building that leaks, nobody builds it, and if they do, nobody lives there for the obvious reason. Things like the EEOC have no place in commerce or trade in the same way mold has no place in your kitchen.
This is not only plausible, but downright easy. Although you can't be thoroughly oblivious, putting that aside you essentially have to consent to EEOC jurisdiction. So, like, don't. I have small sympathy for large companies that existed when the EEOC was first created, but even then you were a large company in a Fascist country; what did you think would happen? An Exit plan is obviously required, where was it? Ejector seats are mandatory if you're going to be driving something that risky and dangerous.
Hypothetically, if everyone secured themselves against the EEOC, it wouldn't be a problem. It would have nothing to do and revoking it would be merely a formality. It would fall down on its own, and even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter.
Empirically, everyone runs up, pulls down their pants, and then shakes their booty at the EEOC. Some "dissidents" then complain about getting ass-raped, but look: you were asking for it. Most less-fervent Americans are complaining that the EEOC's cock is too big and it would hurt less if it were smaller. "Hey, can you use lube sometimes? That would be nice." That's what constitutes "winning" to heretics* and dissidents: getting the EEOC to use lube during surprise buttsex.
*(Everyone who considers themselves on the "right" in America.
To Americans, "surrender" or "doomposting" means not getting any anal rogering.
Can't have that, now can we?
You φαγγωτς, do you wonder why it's called the GAE?
Although the majority of Americans - at least 80% - are black-State buttsex enthusiasts, this still doesn't contravene the fact that, surprisingly in line with intentions, America is a free country. No matter how many starfish the EEOC dominate, you can still just say no, and they can't do shit to stop you. There is no actual problem to solve. Politely decline and move on with your day.
No actual problem as long as you don't insist on dominating them, that is. Trying to steer the EEOC your way is to assent to the legitimacy of spontaneous fudge-packing, countering any defence you might have made, and then the EEOC beats you with both aptitude and experience.
If you commit to minding your own business, the heavens will provide.
If you quit trying to rebel against god, you will find the world is a much less scary place.
"I dindu nuffin! It was all da joos!"
If they weren't poor they would have been able to prevent it, see. It's all the fault of socioeconomic factors.
Don't be surprised Westerners meekly let themselves be locked all the way down.
They were probably relieved to return to the environment of their childhood. "This! This is what I've been trained for!" *Sits quietly at their desk, doing nothing of value.*
"Hey uh the suicide rate is going up, how did that happen where did it come from I'm so surprised." Truly shocking.
Teachers demand you ask permission to use the bathroom, because when you grow up you're supposed to have to ask permission to leave your house. Everything working as intended.
Everything has a price.
You can literally price it in your local coinage.
You can and should price it. You should price it according to your own preference schedule, not the market price, for the purposes of comparing it to everything else. The prices won't be precise, and that's okay, as long as they're vaguely accurate.
Or price it against gold or BTC. I'm not picky. You could price it against barrels of water if you really wanted to, but it seems like unnecessary work.
When something is "priceless" either it is a fancy way of saying value = $0 or someone is trying to scam you. E.g. when they say "you can't put a price on life" it's both. They're saying actually your life = $0 and they want to buy your life at that price.
Price everything, so you learn better and don't sell.
The scholar caste, and sophists in particular, don't like you putting prices on things because that's merchant behaviour. How dare you uphold the customs or habits of the "wrong" caste. Then warriors come along and say stuff like "usury is bad" because they keep taking out scam loans since they're neither well-learned nor into accounting...
P.S. Obvious thing is obvious, but if your own price is higher than market price, then buy, if lower than market price, then sell. Pareto optimization.
Store buys supply for $100.
Sells supply for $106.
Inflation means new supply is $107.
Oops.
Any time inflation exceeds profit margins, your supply lines are going to hiccup. At best the stores have to take out loans to replace the stock they allegedly sold at a profit, and those loans are going to cut further into profits... Next, you will get the traffic jam thing where waves overlap and build up until there's a clog.
If inflation significantly exceeds profit margins over the stock turnover time, store shelves will be stripped bare.
It would be less bad if they were honest about inflation, so it would be predictable. Stores could raise prices on existing stock rather than having to scramble. However, that would mean admitting inflation's purpose is to let the black government loot at will. It would also significantly reduce the Cantillon gradient, and we can't have that, now can we?
Observation: everyone complains about being underpaid.
Hypothesis: this is because everyone is underpaid.
They deserve it for agreeing to work jobs where they're underpaid, but...
BoE makes money worthless, which means your wages are worthless, which means you're underpaid. Nobody can get a decent job because there simply isn't the cash to go around, what with the central bank confiscating it all.
Took over 300 years, but the peasants are finally learning that getting a job is a scam. They're very stupid, but even they figure it out eventually. Don't bother to work in a county with a central bank, it's not worth.
There is no materialist justification for trade.
Any materialist assessment of prices gives you an objective price. A price that's the same for everyone, due to the objective nature of physics. Trade gives you nothing. Might as well keep it.
They like to say e.g. a mine owner will have more iron ore, thus locally a higher supply and thus a lower price, while you have more beans or whatever. However...why don't you just dig up your own ore? Why can't he grow his own beans? Answer: no reason.
If he gives you some ore, and you give him some beans, what's changed? Some transport costs. You spent joules or kilocalories handing it over and accepting the return. The world is poorer, not richer. Better if he grows his own beans and you mine your own ore, and save the transaction costs.
Conclusion: it's not called "godless" Communism by some sort of historical coincidence.
Okay it's not really no reason. You can try to rescue some minor trade from differences in your mobile meat gundams. It's easier for him to mine ore and easier for you to grow beans.
Haha no wait
Why would anyone care if it's easier? Why not just work ten hours instead of eight? Why not double the transaction costs?
Why is there any reason to maximize material gains?
Why not just walk off into the sea and die?
There isn't. Without consciousness, there is no reason at all. Hume was right.
You can test this with brain-damaged patients, by the way. You can lose only your emotions. These patients have full rational abilities, perfectly capable of all the rational arguments and understandings they were capable of before the injury. They just don't do anything. They can't make any decisions, because they have no preferences.
The emotional outranks the logical. Rationality exists as a servant to feelings.
Almost all trade is driven by differences in value, even if we were to assume there is some way to rescue materialist values from the meat-gundam differences. It's not meaningfully easier for him to mine ore; rather, he finds it less stressful than you do. Meanwhile, you find growing beans less stressful.
This is especially evident in low-skilled occupations. The usual trade is the husband doesn't much mind mowing the lawn, and the wife doesn't much mind doing the dishes. Materially, there is no difference if the husband does the dishes and the wife mows the lawn instead. There's no training at all involved in pushing a cart forward. It's purely down to subjective preferences. And yet, this is a profitable trade.
The miner doesn't value ore less because he has more of it. The miner has more ore because he values mining more. You don't value beans less because you have more of them. You have more beans because you value farming more. (Equivalently, value more => cost less.)
It's worth the transaction costs, even though there is no meaningful material difference, because conscious values are better satisfied. You can't just swap jobs, because you don't like tunnels and he finds the sun annoyingly bright.
The monetary prices or "dollar values" we put on things is merely the best-known way to measure conscious values. When the miner gives you a chunk of ore, the actual monetary value of that ore goes up. It's worth more in your hand than it was in his. Gains in trade are the result of diversity in consciousness.
Trade is amazing precisely because ~nothing materially changes, and yet the total value of the world goes up. If you have a lot of trade, paying very tiny costs causes a lot of value to be created. And that's why non-peasant merchants are rich, even though they can't capture much of the value created without stifling the very trades they're facilitating.
Capitalism is the result of not denying the rather obvious reality of the spiritual.
On average stocks retain value against inflation, but don't actually grow on their own.
You can only build an endowment if you're Harvard and can just kinda refuse to pay taxes if you want.
If you have stock + royalties maybe that works too?
One egalitarian lie that I accidentally swallowed and have to fight against: the whole "salt of the earth" idea. Surely, given there's literally billions of the fuckers, some of these peasants have be worth listening to, right?
Haha, yeah no.
All of them are clueless. "The “Great Awokening” has been traced to the early 2010s. Since there was no major law passed at the time that coincided with the shift"
lol
You can't engage intellectually with someone this dense; use force or leave them alone. I certainly keep forgetting.
Go ahead. Email Hanania about how CIA propaganda was legalized domestically for 2013. I'll wait.
Don't get fooled by the fact that [presumption of innocence] is necessary for murder trials. Presume guilt; presume they are forsaken until there's so much evidence you have to stop. Trust must be earned. Respect must be earned. It's really hard to be too judgmental; difficult to be too condemning. Hanania isn't contingently clueless, he is inherently clueless. He aspires to cluelessness and achieves his goal; if you try to stop him, he'll fight you.
"probably would get 90% support if you just showed it to people, right? It’s something like, you can’t discriminate just based on race, sex, color, national origin, right?"
"Gail: I would say more than 90%. I bet you get 95%. [laughter]"
In that case you don't need a law, now do you? This is a marginal issue at most. You don't need any enforcement. If a) everyone thinks 'discrimination' is bad and b) 'discrimination' is in fact bad, then it's going to disappear on its own, now isn't it?
You can just leave freedom of association alone, and it will sort itself out.
The fact they can pass the law proves they don't have to and shouldn't pass the law. It's self-refuting.
Luckily for ravenous, psychopathic politicians, Fascism is utopian. Wu wei is banned. They have to maim and cripple freedom of association, because 95% think 'discrimination' is bad.
"Luck," I call it, as if Fascism wasn't specifically chosen for its utopian character.
This ignorance fatally poisons his essay. He thinks if you revoke civil rights, it would help.
Insert that meme with the three guys in a courtroom all 'secretly' pointing a gun at the head of the person in front of them. Once you've rolled the argument back once, maybe consider that you might have to roll it back further...
"All men are created equal." You have to revoke America per se. Even that isn't really enough; the Bill of Rights is, get this, based on the Bill of Rights. Which is based, in part, on the Magna Carta.
What you have to revoke is Protagoras.
You have to uproot the whole tree.
Maybe once it's out of the ground you can cut it up and use some of the lumber as frames to support a new tree. The correct response to "Civilization!" has been "salvage operation" for thousands of years now. Since Socrates at the latest. "Cooperate with cooperators" isn't exactly rocket science. Three words does not a PhD dissertation make. Rather, "civilization" been a long-form proof that humans want to cheat Gnon, and Gnon catches them every time.
So, actually, no, you don't have to uproot the tree. The fundamental theorem of history is that history repeats. Humans will continue being basically evil. Your step 1 isn't to try to convince a bunch of demons to stop being deviant little shits; your step 1 is to secure yourself against the sewage tide.
They're dumb and clueless; evil is self-destructive. The security isn't hard.
Because peasants aren't fluent in their native tongue, you can't tell if they're saying something stupid because they're thinking of something stupid, or because they're nonverbal animals.
E.g. did the boomers give such awful life advice because they were genuinely deluded, or because they were told to falsely portray the world and they were doing what they're told? In the latter case, the esoteric message was on point: do what the State tells you to do. Given millennial preference schedules, that is indeed their optimal strategy.
Selection effect: if the imperfect way your agent carries out your wishes isn't good enough, you fire them and don't have an agent.
Selection effect: if you gain more than wages+imperfection out of the deal, then you don't have a problem. Cost < benefit = good trade.
Also, you may note, it's quite rare to disobey your boss. Revenge is Sour: if you can fire your agent, you don't have to fire your agent. You can politely suggest an improvement, and if it's at all practical, it will occur.
If you have a principal-agent problem, you aren't the principal and that isn't your agent. He who pays the piper calls the tune: you have a lies are bad mmmkay problem.
You can't revoke their wages because you aren't paying them. They're your agent because someone has put a gun to your head and has forced you to say they're your agent, as a smokescreen. Muddying the waters, trying to conceal their criminal activities.
Works quite well, usually.
"Damn, bureaucracy sucks. Often doesn't work at all."
"Sure does suck, chief. Why don't you just stop using it?"
It's not perfect, at least not yet. They use the term 'microenterprises' which is so bureaucratic it hurts. Nobody real was involved in that name.
The answer, by the way, is control freakery. Microenterprises can't be commanded. If they don't like the deal you're offering, they can just say no. Can't have that, now can we?
I feel dumb.
Q: "Why does good and evil have a quale?"
A: "It's ingroup and outgroup, dumbass."
lol
Pretty sure, many years ago, someone told me this straight-up and I still missed it until now.
Hint: it's in superhero comics and Saturday morning cartoons. It's probably childish.
What does [childish] in fact mean? It means pre-socialization. Occasionally it's fine* but usually it's only suitable for naked savannah apes.
*("He started it" and "I had it first" are in fact valid legal principles.)
Naturally good and evil have no real-world application. It's a stupid approximation for stupid paleolithic societies who can't handle anything more sophisticated.
Naturally, Fascism, narcissistic neo-paleolithic economics, wants you to return to monke. Just be a kid, fit as a fig. Crazy folk can't handle the burden of social skills on top of the burden of their insanity.
Or did real paleolithic tribes even get this degenerate? I rather suspect many of them managed not to witch-hunt the next tribe over. At least, not most of the time. Of course children would be simply taught us=good and them=bad, but adult men, by the neolithic at the latest, would have to be more measured about it. The usual situation is that the next tribe over has something valuable you want to trade for, but also has just as many spears and bows as you do, so you're going to figure out they can't be all bad so you can justify working with them.
Full-fledged Fascist countries are behind paleolithic tribes. The latter had marriage, and the former can't even manage that level of organization and discipline. Rousseau's noble savage is Rousseau hallucinating that savages could get away with being even more ignoble than they actually were, to justify present decadence and degeneration. "Being a useless sissy fop is natural and therefore noble." Sure it is you French ponce.
Universal morality means universal ingroup vs. universal outgroup. A plain self-contradiction.
All these alleged scholars of Scholasticism and nobody notices this rather prosaic identity. Names status: not rectified. Fascists gonna Fasc, I suppose.
All these """enlightenment""" scholars, who allegedly want to oppose Catholicism, and nobody notices...obviously because they want to retain the childish universal distinction. Again, Fascists gonna Fasc... The """enlightenment""" scholars are overall even less impressive than the Scholastics. Same way the Catholics are bad, but the Protestants are worse. Sad.
Americans don't know any psychology, and it shows. They're wholly at the mercy of anyone who does, and indeed if you start telling them how they're being controlled, they get mad at you.
"Don't educate me! Manipulate me! Puppet me!"
I actually don't want to, though? I had enough toys as a kid, I don't need more, thanks.
If Putin's Christianity is partially sincere, it would neatly explain all of his missteps in Ukraine. The fuckups are all well-supported Biblically.
When you see a woman basically idling in a grocery store, she's trying to satisfy her impulse to forage. If she gathers groceries, this is merely a happy coincidence.
It's not that she tries to buy groceries but gets inconveniently caught by her forager instincts, making the process inefficient.
Rather, she feels the impulse to forage, therefore she ends up in a grocery store. Because, as a side-effect, groceries get gathered, she is not punished for this, and is allowed to go again.
She ends up in grocery stores originally because, as it happens, it lets her meet her forager impulse. This then feeds back: the grocery stores compete to satisfy forager impulses better, so that even if a woman does try to rationally buy groceries, she ends up caught by the forager instincts which are being played to.
It would be much more rational if forager parks were maintained. She would subscribe to a forager subscription, which allows her access to one of these parks, which would then properly satisfy her urge to forage. No half measures. However, the market is smarter than me: I don't know exactly what is necessary to satisfy the urge. Obviously actual outdoor berry bushes in a forest or whatever would work, but maybe it can be more efficient.
Ideally these would be extensive* farming operations, so her gathering would in fact pay for the subscription. Her instinct to forage would be satisfied by actual productive foraging
which supported the family she's foraging for. The funds would mainly function as a gate, preventing the area from being over-foraged. However, foraging as leisure would work fine too. She has a foraging quota and this needs to be met, or she's going to be stressed and cranky; this quota is a feeling and it's entirely plausible to suppose it can be fully met without any actual productive foraging going on.** Have forager porn, as it were.
*(Opposite of intensive.)
**(Albeit, this is not the most probable arrangement of facts.)
In this way, her city would be modified so that her instinctual API would cause her to lower her stress (visiting a park, in the end) and raise her productivity, as opposed to blocking the aisle at Costco.
It is reasonable to suppose Asian women are historically and genetically further from hunter tribes, and have a weaker foraging instinct. As such, Costco doesn't exist in Asia. They rationally buy things with lower prices as a normal thing, rather than this rational behaviour being limited to a special minority.
By contrast, Occidentals normally either don't think about it at all, or else use exclusively low prices as a consideration, stopping only when the food becomes completely disgusting and inedible.
I hear (and it makes sense) that most women can't cook anyway, so it's not like she can tell the difference. Good food and bad are equally ruined by her poor skills.
You may notice this would require giving up certain social signals. You would no longer be signalling rational behaviour and Toughing It Out and desperately trying to show how different you are from beasts or whatever.
Try to get rich enough you can afford to let the neighbours think badly of you. Be rich enough that you can tell they aren't worth trying to impress.
As a stupid example of efficiency, imagine a shoujo arcade. Basically a bunch of pixel-hunt arcade cabinets. They would be quiet games, so she can easily chat with her friend in the next cabinet, or maybe even hunt cooperatively by default. Unlike male arcades which have tight time limits, there would be weak or possibly even no time limits. Perhaps (again) only an entrance fee and you would let the women "convince" each other to "share." I hear they're into that sort of thing.
This wouldn't fully satisfy the forager instinct, so it would be supplemented by whatever is missing, but this secondary subscription would be much cheaper than a full root/berry-hunt park subscription.
Very reluctantly, I will surmise that subsidies would help. Perhaps forager parks are extremely useful but the land required is way more expensive than what women are willing to pay for. If so, the government has to step in to match women's desires to their needs by paying part of the cost.
(However we can still see no black government will ever use subsidies this way. No special interest or voting bloc is being paid off, and it would violate Conquest #3.)
On reflection, perhaps better to use status effects. Have celebrities and facecam app stars talk about their trips to forager parks. This will create plenty of artificial demand, driving up the price until the industry can afford the land it needs. "My husband can send me to the upscale forager park. *smug*"
Just like Gevlon's Orca, you can simply secure yourself against the black government, and all they're able to do is to is neener-neener at you and pretend they won.
(Don't worry, the peasants will all agree with them, because NPCness.)
https://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/search?q=double-wrapped+burn+jita
The peasants aren't going, "Oh geeze oh man, how do I secure my Orca?"
It's instrumental. They're thinking, "Okay, I want to seize the government. What's my excuse for trying to seize the government? Okay, it's because they keep seizing my Orca, and I'm going to argue they're not "supposed" to do that!"
Except, you know, this already happened. This competition already occurred, and the winners are already in charge of the government. Satan ruled Hell because Satan wanted it most. Satan was arch-traitor because he had already proven he was the most treacherous. Turns out nobody could out-lie the father of lies for some reason.
Good vs. evil is merely cooperation vs. defection.
Lawful vs. chaotic is actually about being agreeable or disagreeable.
Maybe, based on the DM, it's sometimes about conscientiousness as well. You can make agreements with low-C but then they forget, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
The economic arguments against immigration are almost all nonsense.
If expanding the population is bad, then shrinking the population must be good.
Want to "create jobs," you moronic Luddites? Trying to undo automation? Easy: stop using black gold. Use solar panels to crack water for hydrogen.
It's immensely labour-intensive. You spend at least 90% of the hydrogen you make transporting the remainder to where it needs to go. Which means you need ten times as much solar, which means ten times as much labour. Jobs! Jobs for everyone! Jobs everywhere!
E.g. build a giant chimney in the Sahara. Use the induced wind to run turbines, which power the water pumps and desalinators. Ship the resulting hydrogen and use it for everything.
Indeed, perhaps solar is still too efficient. Why not power batteries using hand cranks? Don't exactly need an education to turn a crank for eight hours. Supervision costs are nice and low. Might end up using half the labour force to create energy, but hey: isn't that exactly what we wanted? Jobs!
Or maybe, just maybe, consider that the market is perfectly capable of clearing. Demand for jobs creates supply of jobs, same as demand always creates supply. If there's lots of "structural unemployment" that means the available labour isn't worth the lowest price you're allowed to pay for it. That's not a Capitalism problem.
Nicotine is an anti-neurotic.
It's medicinal for many. "Costs ten years of my life and thousands upon thousands of dollars? ...yeah, worth it." Whether you're neurotic because of trauma or because you have a case of the Hebrews, it can be robustly helpful.
Does it even truly cost that much lifespan? More likely, neurotics don't live long in the first place. Base rate fallacy. Yeah it's not good for you but it's not that bad. Regardless, folk who get addicted to it are psychologically addicted, not physiologically.
Fascism hates smoking because it is a terrorism regime. Hates it when folk go all 'meh' to its panic-mongering. Intent matters.
Some Jews have this blink where they scrunch up their whole face. It's because they're so neurotic they wince at life in general. "I exist! Ow!"
Of course demons are going to pretend to be angels.
If two demons gang up on a lone demon, the gang wins. If four demons gang up on the pair, the squad wins. Hence, Darwin selects for some level of cooperation. However, the primary purpose of life, for all demons, is to defect. They want to be a criminal, and if they don't get to be a criminal to someone, they are unsatisfied.
The difference between a "normal" human and a psychopath is that a limiter is missing. What you're seeing is a normal human with a casing off; with the circuitry laid bare.
At most 5% of humanity are bizarre mutants who are missing the defection drive. 95% are psychopaths who are being forced by their meat to have some minimal appreciation for cooperation. Or rather, 93% are being forced, and ~2% or whatever are missing that part and run wild.
Demons are going to pretend to be angels; if you take things at face value, all you'll ever see is a bunch of angels.
Intent matters. Little but intent matters, in the end. The market will provide. It will sum human demand, which is human intent, which is human value. Humanity per se gets the world they in sum want to buy and are willing to pay for.
This is why providing a common foe makes humans so happy. It satisfies their core value of beating somebody up.
This is why humans are sectarian. If you mange to win a war properly, then they run out of victims. They have to break up so they have somebody to attack. Outfighting is better, sure, but infighting beats a state of peace every time.
Losing sucks, but it's better than having to get along. The opportunity to win, as opposed to merely prosper, is always too tempting to pass up, no matter how bad the odds or how pyrrhic the victory.
This is why it seems nobody can make a voluntary, cooperative, white government. The chance to enshrine your bullying into law is simply too tempting. That's it, that's the thing everyone wants: to beat up the majority as a minority, ideally as a minority of one. They want to see the world as abundant. Abundant in victims, that is.
You can't have a world government because it would immediately split
into two and start a war with itself. Unity is only useful
instrumentally as a means to beat up someone you're not united with.
This is why Fascists are obsessed with appearances. If they can force you, too, to be obsessed with appearances, via social pressure and unconscious mimicry, then you might be fooled by their angel camouflage. Ideally, despite continuing to victimize you.
Secularism is popular because denying that spirituality is real lets you deny consciousness is real which lets you deny intent is real, thus assists in hiding the fact the world is shit because they intend for it to be shit.
This is why humans make shit parents. They're forced by their meat to take certain steps to protect their ongoing genes, but ultimately they're ecstatic to have someone small and weak to victimize. If you can't be the black government and beat up the whole country, you can at least be a parent and beat up your kid.
This is why public school; most parents are cowards and are scared of someone calling them on their abusive behaviour. Much safer to hire someone to beat up your kid on your behalf. Not quite as satisfying as doing it personally, but worth the trade.
This is also why parents always instantly explode if you try to criticize their parenting. "Yeah no shit I'm a bad parent. I'm doing it on purpose." They have something to hide. They can't defend their choices. They have to prevent you from trying to attack, via overwhelming violence.
All the other parents are equally shit and will pre-emptively defend each other. Parents understand that if they don't speak up now, nobody will speak for them when you get around to coming for them.
That's why everyone wants to be immortal. If you're immortal you don't have to protect your kids anymore. It's fine if they all die from excessive brutality.
For the tiny minority that genuinely likes their children, immortality isn't a big deal.
"Women are evil. Pandora. Eve." Sexual selection goes both ways, brotha. If you didn't want evil daughters all you had to do is marry the less-evil wives. You didn't.
What's actually going on: women are lesser and thus held to a lower standard. They don't have to hide how evil they are. Elegance is prized in women precisely because by default they're quite clumsy, and the contrast between expectation and reality is striking. Since they're clumsy, they accidentally reveal the normal depravity that men take pains to hide, and since they're held to a lower standard, nobody minds.
Ultimately, women only need to cooperate at all with their children and a few other neighbourhood mothers. (Their husbands can force cooperation, and generally have to if they want to see any.) Successful men have to cooperate with a much wider circle of casual acquaintances and can't get away with being so openly or impulsively destructive.
What is the red pill shit test? "I am too destructive to successfully raise children unless you force me not to be. Are you man enough to stop me from killing my own kids?" Shit tests are annoying because initiating one is disqualifying. You don't like them because they're bad. However, you'll be looking a very long time if you don't put up with the disqualification.
Modern innovations in soft abuse have delighted everyone. If you abuse your kids by depriving them of food, it's too obvious. What if instead you abuse them by giving them too much food? What if you abuse them by giving them all the candy they clamour for? What if you abuse them not by hitting them too much, but by providing no structure at all? Same result, but you look better doing it. Only didn't happen sooner because it costs an extra layer of thinking. It's "civilized" abuse, resulting from socialization, not instinct.
This is why most normal humans say a government is "necessary" to keep them in line. "Yes, I would commit all sorts of crime if a bigger bully didn't force me not to on pain of death, and so would everyone I know." They're not completely wrong.
Of course this means the biggest criminals will take over the government and make it even worse. Precisely because everyone is indeed all psychopathic criminals, they wouldn't take the disorganized crime lying down. Organized crime, such as black government, is inherently worse.
This seems worthwhile to them because it creates the opportunity, no matter how unlikely, for them to seize the government and personally be the biggest bully...
This is why population growth is bad. Children with bigger bullies as parents, who would otherwise die due to the artificial deprivation, survive. Likewise, bigger adult bullies, who would otherwise fail to find a big enough gang to cooperate with due to being so repulsive, breed successfully anyway.
This is why population "decline" is good. This is why birth control is good. Ultimately parents attack their kids because they hate them. Intent matters, and it feeds back. E.g. peasants, although clueless and ignorant, do eventually work out that they don't want to have kids and thus, given the option, don't. The longer "decline" goes on, the stronger the selection for parents who actually like kids and want to support them.
You can see other great apes are basically evil too. They engage in wholly unnecessary torture all the time. There's no survival benefit; they just like doing it. Almost the entire primate order is a shithole.
Or were Americans significantly less cowardly before FDR?
Imagine a modern speakeasy. Literally about speaking; you're banned for not using racial slurs, and gays and women aren't allowed. Obviously the government will instantly find and vaporize this establishment.
What's so different in the 1920s? Were Americans not snitches? Is there a trick to keeping it on the down low, which they weren't too afraid to find and use? Or were they de-facto government sponsored?
