Aggregate demand is the gestalt of the terminal goals of the market participants, weighted by how badly they want to satisfy the terminal goals of others (usually instrumentally rather than terminally) and whether they're any good at it.
If you don't like what the market supplies, then you don't like humanity.
Admittedly terminal goals are typically defined by the local religion, and it would be hard to come up with a more suboptimal local religion.
The fundamental theorem of sociology is the prisoner's dilemma.
Though the classic version is missing the [no interaction] column. Showing the originators face by returning explicitly to the perps caught by the cops...what if they decided not to perpetrate in the first place? Left each other alone? You can't be tempted to betray your fellow if they are not your fellow at all. Also they wouldn't be caught by the cops in the first place.
Altruism is not cooperation. Altruism is not minding your own business. The only reason I don't say altruism is inherently defective is that sometimes it mimics a cooperative trade.
Altruism doesn't ask if you want the gift. Nobody asked the slaves if they wanted to be freed, they were just punted off the plantations. This worked so well they immediately had to come back as sharecroppers.
All altruism is callous altruism.
If it is not callous, then you ask first. "Hey man, do you want some X? Maybe some Y?"
Zeroth problem: this gives them a chance to refuse. What is the altruist supposed to do if they say no?
First problem: now it isn't altruism, it's negotiation. Any single X or Y is negligible. What they want is an ongoing supply of X or Y, and look, let's be real here, you're not doing that for free. Even in the extraordinarily unlikely case that the altruist will freely support another person unconditionally, the constant contact will form a relationship. It's now a social thing, not an altruism thing. Can't be stranger altruism if they're not a stranger.
If it's negotiation, it's a trade. If it's a trade, you're not doing it for free. If it's not for free, it's not altruistic.
It's just that, occasionally, had you asked, they would have said yes, so it mimics a cooperative trade. However, the fact you didn't ask displays the callous solipsism this "altruism" in fact comes from.
As per Last Psych, in theory the narcissist could pretend not to be a narcissist, and from the point of view of everyone else, they would be cured. Problem: solved. Great. However, the issue with lies is that, when push comes to shove, the truth comes out. Lies are unreliable. Untrustworthy, even. How counter-intuitive. Under stress, the exact time it's actually important, the narcissist - whether a standard narcissist or a treated narcissist - reverts to their true personality. The personality they hate so much they have to pretend it doesn't exist. Don't worry, you'll hate it just as much. Conquest #1: nobody knows a person like they themselves do. They spend exactly 100% of their time in the company of said person, after all.
If an altruist is doing you a favour, first, grab your wallet before they get their fingers into it. Second, come up with an exit plan. They do not have your best interests at heart, and this will reveal itself the instant the altruism is infinitesimally inconvenient to the altruist.
Of course if you've glanced briefly at psychological egoism you already knew. The altruist may not get classic materialist rewards like money or other goods, but they would only engage in altruism if they found it rewarding in one way or another. The begging-enabler gives money to the alcoholic head-case because they either value warm fuzzies more than a couple bucks, or because their guilt is holding them hostage. Pretty lame hostage situation that can be bought off for the price of a coffee, though. Guilt, that was cringe.
The altruist is getting paid. If they weren't, they would quit. That's simply how decision-making works. The mind chooses the most valuable of the available options. Basically by definition; what it chooses reveals what it finds most valuable, modulo some ignorance or oversights.
When the altruist claims to be altruistic, they are lying. Lies, as I've covered, are unreliable. The altruist says they're in it for you, and they are not. Plan accordingly.
When you genuinely want to help someone, get paid. Offer them something they want. Confirm they want it when they demonstrate they're willing to give up something to receive it; avoid wasteful offerings. Get paid explicitly, forthrightly, and honourably, instead of lying about your wages. Fund further offerings of value using the price you charge, so the person you want to help doesn't run out of the thing they need help with.
Sustainability isn't enviro-Nazis. Sustainability is getting paid market value for the providence of value. Charity actively weakens the victim, and is usually intended to. Trade is antifragile. Trade, as per the prisoner's dilemma payoff matrix, makes you both wealthier than you would be had you minded your own business, which it does by making the relationship into your business, which you can then mind anyway. Indeed literally a business.
Greed is not a sin. Altruism is a sin.
The reality is the problem doesn't have a particular solution. However, Fascists can't leave it alone. Something Must Be Done. Even if it makes the problem worse, it's fine as long as you can feel like you're helping.
(Also it shouldn't have a solution because you don't own the resource gestalt, you own some particular property.)
When we all drown, shall we be sitting in the pink chairs, or the blue?
Truly, let us contemplate the important questions
of our time.
The joke being that the cosmetic debates are exactly as shallow as they appear, but there is no alternative. Everything allegedly less shallow is pure futility.
I keep thinking about how the stereotypical woman wants to talk about fashion and face-paint and celebrity gossip, and how this is transcendentally superior to talking about the "deep" topics, especially given how the stereotypical man in fact talks of them, and especially politics.
Yes, let us contemplate cute cat pictures. They are unquestionably more profound than anything on e.g. Unz.com. There is no overlap, and the cat pictures go on top. You could in fact go buy a cat if you wanted, whereas you're quite unwilling to do anything effective with respect to politics. Journalism is inherently irresponsible and talking about politics is inherently not minding your own business.*
The way feminine Fascism is plain better than masculine Fascism can be seen again in the way women scold vs. the way men scold. Male political discussions are exactly like scolding, but more destructive. The female scold is deluded, whereas it very much behooves the men to know better, or to learn from their mistakes. If you're not a weak-minded pussy you can simply ignore the annoying woman. Men will genuinely get into fistfights over meaningless politics. Or fire each other, to be topical. Attempting to ruin each other's lives over a culture war they're both guaranteed to lose.
This is the moment where one of my critics could make themselves useful, if this wasn't Pontus.
N.B. it is likely that Rome was itself too Pontic, or it wouldn't have
fallen. It is likely that Athens herself was, with the exception of
Socrates and Aristotle, also Pontus. As a result, doubtless I will have to play the critic's role myself. Newton, also, found that company other than his own was superfluous. Do note this is explicitly a falsifiable statement. Also don't forget the opening line of this paragraph before the 30th's post.
Basically Moldbug would be satisfied with aesthetic intellectualism; a certain style
of sophistication, regardless of whether any actual production gets done.
Wants to attend the Vienna cafes - and I'm certainly sympathetic to this
desire - but not interested in whether the cafe attendees ever actually
change their behaviour as a result of allegedly changing their ideas.
When you change what you profess but don't change how you behave, it reveals you were, all along, merely discussing styles of plumage. Like the women swapping lipstick, except less honest. And with more fistfights.
Not that I'm against fistfights per se, but intellectuals generally can't throw a punch, which is a reflection of the fact the fight is dishonourable. It looks bad because it is bad. We can imagine two men challenging each other to a duel of the fist, with explicit stakes for winning and losing. "You shall never again claim to believe X or to have done Y." "I will assert leadership of this mannerbund." The point being they can negotiate their own stakes, as long as they are real.
When intellectuals fight, there are no stakes except that bruises hurt. The fact they can't throw a punch is also a reflection of the fact it's a childish squabble; they are intuitively mimicking their intended eight-year-old roughhousing. During political debates, both sides claim their rep "won" and likewise on Twitter. It's meaningless.
Even if you cornered them into wagering for stakes, they would pervert the process. I've personally tried it. It is meaningless on purpose.
Politics and religions are the canon impolite topics. Lately it is clear they are in fact the same topic. Religions are political and politics is religious. The problem is that religion claims to be apolitical; it is a way of smuggling a culture war topic in without having to declare it. The problem is that politics claims to be atheist; it is a way of smuggling heresy examination into a conversation without having to declare it.
The topic is inherently a dishonest dominance play. It is inherently impolite for two reasons. Perhaps surprisingly, an impolite thing was properly considered impolite.
*(And teaching, more properly called pedagogy, is inherently the [insane godless communism] kind of parasocial.)
If the government is going to meddle with who is speaking and who isn't, how about we get some subsidized peace and quiet around here...
"Has anyone in the NRx movement (or outside it) summarized the arguments against the Enlightenment? Or its failings?"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/AnonYmo33883364/status/1605614118957748224
Well, okay. Yes, this can be done.
The dumb, easy materialist summary is this: human happiness of no particular value; enlightenment "liberty" and constitutional government contravene property rights; "progress" is just atheist newspeak for Providence, and history is far more cyclical than progressive; tolerance is worse than intolerance; and fraternity is newspeak for blank-slate Egalitarianism.
The psychohistory summary is this: Enlightenment thinkers are Sophists. They're just lying. They're quite good at it, so it worked.
I grabbed the list of Enlightenment propositions from Wikipedia. Since they're Sophists they are regularly slippery about their alleged ideas. They don't want to be pinned down since a non-protean lie is much easier to debunk. However, turns out you can't buy good liars for $0 an hour. The list seems basically fine, although, as per the bad-liar archetype, La Wik's little digression about the start date of the Enlightenment is accidentally revealing. Fascism must always be ever newer, to disguise how old and stale it truly is.
The real story is that mortals regularly confuse the inside of Plato's cave for the outside and vice-versa. The underworld is the real world: the seeming lights are false, illusionary lights; the seeming darkness is true. The more abyssal, the more profound.
Enlightenment thinkers planned to turn up the alleged lights, and succeeded. They hate and fear Reality; they drag everyone else along with them into deep falsehood so that nobody accidentally reminds them of the intolerable Truth.
Anyway let's take the list point by point.
What makes human happiness valuable? The fact humans value it. Humans also value other things. Indeed humans often or even normally value other things more highly than happiness.
The "pursuit of happiness" line in the US constitution was originally something about defense of property. However, taxation is contrary to property rights, so a black government certainly can't have anything lionizing property rights.
And that's why Enlightenment thinkers want you to focus on happiness: so this nebulous, almost impossible-to-define concept can be used to distract you from vandalism, theft, battery, fraud. What you want is to satisfy profound values, not to be quieting the ephemeral impulses of your meat gundam.
Luckily for the Sophists, the meat is indeed distracting, and meanwhile you likely don't even know what your profound values are without hundreds of hours of contemplation.
Sophists looked at Plato's description of Democratic Man and was like, "Yes, let's order that one!"
In Reality, property rights give you control over your own life, and therefore constitute true liberty in any meaningful definition of the word. Enlightenment liberty is "voting" and including "a constitution" in the political formula. Enlightenment liberty is inherently anti-libertarian. They justify a black government which then meddles with your life; it both refuses to secure your property and regularly outlaws you securing your own property.
Enlightenment liberty does make the black government even more insecure. It is usurper-positive. The only thing worse than a black government is a paranoid, nervous black government. Allegedly it's okay for the black government to mess with your property if you're allowed to (symbolically, ultimately) mess with its property. Two wrongs make a right, according to Enlightenment thinkers.
In Reality, if you take two left turns you're heading directly backwards. Sinister.
If you have property you can dispose of that property so as to maximize your values. An Enlightenment government will only allow you to dispose of property in the (impossible) pursuit of "happiness."
In the state immediately preceding atheism, Providence was said to provide. Have faith in God. The Enlightenment was all like, "There's no evidence for spirituality! The divine is illogical!" So, now they have faith in Progress instead, which is the same thing except it manifests the anti-logic they accuse theologians of using. "The arc of history bends always toward more Progress!" "Why? Who causes this?" "Ummm...hey look a squirrel!"
First, it's about Fascism. Faith in something other than the black Sophist government can't be allowed. Their government is weak and can't handle the slightest competition for loyalty.
Second, it's about justifying the Enlightenment on materialist grounds. Technological discovery is claimed to follow from and only from Enlightenment philosophy. Technology makes you Happy, doesn't it? Obviously there is nothing valuable except Happiness, therefore you must support Enlightenment Sophists no matter how disgusting they may seem.
I would also like to note a disturbing faith in permanence. Those socialized under Enlightenment values believe progress is nearly irreversible, although if it is reversed - if Hortlor gets into power - the stagnant state could also be nigh-permanent. When they think of a thousand-year empire of a tyrant squelching the people, constantly silencing the endless cry for progress, they think this is even vaguely physically plausible.
In Reality, Progress is Regress.
If new technology is discovered or researched, it is despite the Enlightenment, not because of it.
Tolerance is particularly Sophisticated. What tolerance allegedly is changes based on whatever serves the Sophist at that particular moment. Kto kogo.
Tolerance is, again, contrary to property rights. Tolerance is about allowing
events or persons on your property that you don't want to allow. It is
about suppressing your own values in favour of the Sophist's values.
Most often it's about the fact that Sophists need gulls. If nobody listens to their specious arguments, they are powerless. However, gulls are rude, criminal, low class, clinically insane, and/or foreign. Hence, you must tolerate their voting blocs.
In theory tolerance is about the fact a sacred cow is a falsehood you're not supposed to question. If you gore a sacred cow everyone gets upset. However, a true truth-seeker must tolerate the goring of sacred cows. In Reality the Sophist is the first one to set up sacred cows and is only interested in goring the sacred cows of outsiders. They are radically intolerant. In Reality, stripped of all pretenses, Enlightenment "tolerance" is nothing but a base scam.
There is a valid form of tolerance in the vicinity, but without Catholic Universalism of the Enlightenment, nobody would think to be intolerant in that way in the first place.
(Namely, mores are local and thus morality is local. Absent Catholicism it won't occur to you to condemn the mores of distant strangers as inherently immoral. Indeed to someone socialized outside the Enlightenment, it would be stranger for distant peoples to have the same mores as you do. Freaky.)
Fraternity is even more nebulous than tolerance. We have to impute something to it because the Sophists won't stop to talk about it at all.
I go with [brotherhood of humanity].
Catholic Universalism and blank-slate Egalitarianism. Everyone is identical; if they don't look identical it's because of False Consciousness.
Since everyone is identical, we must all have the same interests and values. (I.e. Happiness.) Anyone who seems to have different values or interests must be malicious (traumatized in childhood or whatever) or insane. Confused, at best. We must bring the Gospel to the unEnlightened heathens! The Gospel of Voting and Tolerance and being Happy through not owning anything (because Communism is very Sophist and the black government wants to arrogate all property to itself)!
I don't even feel the need to debunk this. No wonder the Sophists refuse to talk about it explicitly. Nobody can spin that into anything even vaguely plausible.
Wikipedia also mentions the pursuit of knowledge through logical reason and experimental evidence. When Enlightenment thinkers say this, they're just lying.
It's mainly a sugar coating to make the bitter blue pill go down smooth. Secondarily it was happening anyway, they didn't yet know how to suppress it, so they confiscated credit and successfully twisted the process towards their own destructive ends.
"The central doctrines of the Enlightenment were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Church."
They're just lying.
Sophists realized that gulls could be fooled by a thin veneer. They like the iron fist; they merely replace the velvet glove with an illusionary glove. Every American voter is a slave. However, you're allowed to choose your own job, meaning prima facie it doesn't feel like being a slave. And that is quite sufficient.
Sophists being Sophists, this veneer has become incredibly sophisticated. However, it remains nothing but a veneer. In the long run you realize something's wrong and become...unHappy. And then take fentanyl until you overdose and die.
Sophists tell their gulls they can reason through theology themselves. They can't. Gulls who attempt logic end up at materialism, because they're lazy and undisciplined. (But everyone is identical; if a gull can't disprove materialism, nobody can disprove materialism. At least, according to kto kogo.) Materialism is easy; Truth is more difficult. Sophists use this to discredit competing religions.
Pre-Enlightenment governments aspired to tyranny. Post-Enlightenment governments aspire to tyranny. Sophists found they could put up a layer of security over their tyrannies by pretending to oppose tyranny. The Enlightenment was an advancement in black government design, nothing more, nothing less.
Sophists are smart, so it worked right away. Indeed, in retrospect, it appears that dumb, gullible peasants like tyranny. Non-tyranny doesn't make them at all Happy.
"I've done everything you're supposed to."
Ah, yup. That would do it. No wonder your children are going fuckin' insane.
"She's been in therapy since age 12 also because of her depression"
Oh good, I was worried this ""mother"" wouldn't attest to all the symptoms of derangement that she's caused.
Note that she's isn't even competent enough at doing what "you're supposed to" to spell [a lot] correctly. She's desperately trying to conform and failing. She's not only following the recipe for total perversion, she's following it wrong.
This ""mother"" lets the Regime fill and overfill her buffers and doesn't save anything for the physical reality of her family members.
If you have any genuine empathy for your children, you can't do what you're "supposed to" do. You see how upset they are, and you can't bear to continue. It's not the envious resentment of the pilloried transgressor. They're crestfallen. Appalled. Betrayed. It's not entitled spite, it's hopeless despair. Or, as some call it, [depression].
"My child showed no warning signs"
"There's always a chance this is also a maladaptive coping mechanism for her to deal with something else that slid past me."
"With my eldest, I'm hoping her art can become her way of coping."
Remember, don't fix problems. That's not what you're supposed to do. You "cope" with them.
"In my own research I've seen countless screenshots of children making posts saying "My parents have a small age gap, ew, I can't trust them anymore" and I'm left here terrified, wondering how many of them have been groomed "
Don't worry, it won't be long until treating a 10-minute age difference as an atrocity is what you're "supposed to" do.
Unless he's hot, of course. Then kto kogo and his hot girlfriend outranks your dowdy mom voice.
https://archive.ph/20221026174438/https://old.reddit.com/r/Advice/comments/xaexrc/i_got_a_phone_call_from_my_daughters_school_and/
The curious part of Fascism is that it's even more childish than literal hunter-tribe savages. They have marriages and stuff, the local big man enforces the law, and neither phenomenon survives the transition to Fascism. Hunter tribes are in fact less egalitarian than Fascists are.
What happened? Is this ideological feedback? Is Sophism really that effective?
What happened is a breeding program. The outbreeding program.
In short outbreeding makes you treat strangers like family. The family-support instincts get hijacked and your inner circle expands to encompass "all humanity" as it is phrased. P.S. Altruism is not cooperation, and folk who lionize altruism are untrustworthy.
Certainly I'm no fan of collectivism, but by inspection Communist egalitarianism is worse. N.B. if you get rid of nepotism you don't get meritocracy, you get theocracy. Tests of purity of "friends" (allies) instead of tests of purity of blood.
Ideology matters, especially when it comes from the blood. What happens if you instinctively believe every stranger is part of your family?
If everyone is family, you're one step away from the daddy model of wealth. Food comes from the grocery store. If everyone is family, then all relationships are social, not parasocial. Why are we bringing money into it? If everyone is family, obviously nobody is malicious. Timmy broke into that shop, murdered the shopkeeper, and raped the keeper's sister because he was lonely and nobody pays attention to him.
Poor Timmy! Only a few depraved mutant monsters would attack their own family. The blood (allegedly) stops you from committing fratricide. It must be "societal" (==familial) factors that drove him to this.
If everyone is family and worthy of altruism, then clearly whatever obvious external differences we can see must not matter. Substantially everyone is identical. That and the cognitive load of keeping track of all the differences is way, way, way too high, so it gets savagely simplified. Childishly so, really. If everyone is substantially identical, why wouldn't you be egalitarian? Fanatically Egalitarian?
the age of enlightenment IS what core europeans are all about! hurray! (^_^) the Project and its effects are ongoing today.
Of course it is now flagrantly obvious that the "enlightenment" was anything but the bringing of light. It was the hyper-Christianization of Europe. Christianity is in fact Satanism. It converted Europe from a Hellenized region to a Hellinized region; hyper-Christianization was the final ascension of Satan over his favourite torture factory.
Intent matters. Folk with benevolent intent do not force indifferent strangers to do anything. The intent of the Catholics was not to help Europe, and thus their meddling was not a boon to Europe.
Ultimately the Catholic anticlan breeding program was itself a manifestation of inter-clan spite. You're not going to get rid of shame, corruption, impulsive violence, and suppression of individual egos via explicitly and intentionally upholding a clan structure. Thus, e.g. America is at least 50 times as violent as it needs to be, Twitter spends around 90% of its time shaming the outgroup for being outgroup, if you're not corrupt you literally can't do anything in the government, and narcissism prevents individuals from showing their actual personality, if any.
In short, the Catholic breeding program succeeded at certain superficial Goodhart targets, but mainly introduced bugs. Mortal attempts at eugenics are childish finger-painting as compared to Nature's ouvres, thus result in a childish phenotype. Further the affected genes are now working at cross-purposes to the genome as a whole, resulting in a phenotype which is inherently insane. If it wasn't contradictory and self-defeating we wouldn't call it crazy.
Look, unholy religions are bad for you. Allowing an unholy religion dominance for over two millennia, eighty generations or so, was fantastically unwise. However, Original Sin...
--
There was a very different offramp.
I like to think that [cooperate with cooperators, trade is good actually] is not Riemann tensors, not complex-valued quantum chromodynamics, not rocket surgery. It shouldn't take a transcendental genius to consider !feuding with the next clan over.
Then, because !feuding is in fact a good idea, it would make those clans stronger. Then the idea would spread, because everyone likes a strong horse.
This would not be trying to force cooperation, an inherently insane oxymoron. (Did you forget? Intent matters.) Rather, the conscious, mindful attempts to cooperate would feed back into the genome and cause a cooperative phenotype in, as they say, a healthy, natural way. It would minimize the change, rather than trying to maximize the change for ego-stroking reasons.
This is slower, since it requires folk to be persuaded rather than cattle-prodded. It requires letting the fool persist in his folly, that he may become wise. It requires patience on the part of the stewards.
Except, of course, the Christian-Satanists are correct about humanity being inherently evil. I rather suspect the god of that godforsaken book wasn't lying when he claimed to have created mortals. The joke when I call the species Caino hypocriens is that I'm perfectly serious, even though it is funny.
Is the species not exactly what you would expect of Satan's masterpiece? Aside from physics forcing cooperation on pain of death here and there, is there anything out of place? Perhaps the primate order was not literally created by Satan, but if not, it's more of a difference of no difference. You will find no inconsistencies.
An inherently evil species likes to feud. Feuding is the point. It's not some kind of mistake or oversight or foolish in any way, shape, or form. Feuding is the end; having clans is merely a means. If you get rid of the clans without getting rid of the evil, they will only find some other way to hold feuds. What a waste of everyone's time.
It's just that, if Caino hypocriens is indeed inherently evil, it is exceptionally futile to attempt to make it less evil. Who are you going to appoint to oversee the project, exactly, given that personnel is policy? Christians need angelic rulers, but are far too disgusting; any actual angel would be repulsed, refusing to accept the position. Every eugenic program is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. When we all drown, shall we be sitting in the pink chairs, or the blue?
If you genuinely love someone you naturally would like them to love you back, but you wouldn't like it to be unconditional. You want them to love you in such a way that they profit immensely. You want your love for them to constitute and imply enormous wealth of diverse kinds.
You want to do great things for them, and for them to love you for the glory you bring.
I buy the whole Greek three-part soul thing. I think the correct names are solar soul, lunar soul, and earthly soul. You have the rational mind, the emotional mind, and the physical mind.
However, it's more like three tribes than three whole individuals. I independently derived the so-called "internal family" model of the brain. To oversimplify, the brain is a pile of ASICs, and some of those ASICs have basic sentience. You can talk to them and negotiate for different cognition; ref: Stoicism. Even the main voluntary consciousness is merely the circuit with the specific purpose of being general-purpose. It's a bit small because as coded via neurons, general-purpose processing is expensive.
""Yoel Roth" is not a person, it's an idea, a cancer cell, and by the
time you notice it, by the time it has metastasized enough that you can
see it, it's already too late"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/L0m3z/status/1606386157406851092
Alternatively, try having lords run things instead of peasants.
Roth comes off as as terminally perverted within 30 seconds. Red warning lights across the whole panel. Anyone who hires him, or anyone like him, is either utterly incompetent or so pozzed they're doing it on purpose. Musk is kinda both, by the way. His Conquest #1 area is heavily defended - to get in you have to use a lot of force. Everything else in his brain is a wasteland of 99% poz.
P.S. Everyone who didn't wait at least six months to leap back into twatter's arms jumped the gun. Seriously, show some continence and restraint. Let things settle. This isn't runway fashion - you don't have to pounce instantly on every fad to avoid getting left behind.
Previously, on Accepting Ignorance...
To start a set 2, the intuition makes a prediction. A correct prediction. I don't know what the prediction is, though. It's just a feeling. Technically, a feeling is a word in a language, except I don't know the language. What is this feeling telling me about the situation? I have no idea. I have to incarnate the situation so I can see what prediction was made.
Because English is horribly impoverished there are no words for the feelings. Can't even write down the prediction. (Is it jamborflimanj or is it semlapoofle?)
Still, it helps to take a guess at what the feelings means, even though I'm probably wrong. Makes more memory connections.
Once I've seen the situation the feeling was about, I can retroactively work out what was predicted. When I get the same feeling in future, I can test my understanding by doing another second set.
I've always thought doing this used to be normal. It's something every child should do out of natural inclination - they have the time, after all. Once you've done enough set 2s to reach basic apprentice level competency, it becomes easy to see that it's being actively discouraged by e.g. journalists. Secular anti-consciousness.
The Regime greatly fears the power of your intuition. "Your mind is an illusion."Uh huh, thanks for letting me know what you're afraid of.
At high levels of competency it's easy to see folk using their intuition wrong. "Oh I recognize the feeling they're trying to express, but that's the wrong words for it." My intuition is 100% correct. I fail it, it doesn't fail me. While I can't tell if this is normal, being correct at 90+ rates is definitely very common. However, without intensive training, you have no idea what it's trying to tell you. Failing the intuition, too, is very common.
P.S. Materialism cannot explain why the brain would have a source of extremely accurate information that's unlabelled. Evolution cannot select in favour of unlabelled impulses. How is the brain supposed to even manage doing a thing the brain can't parse? "I have evolved .png. *fanfare* Shame the rest of the visual cortex runs on .jpg...."
".@SenSchumer & @LeaderMcConnell, the public has spoken.
They are overwhelmingly against this giant spending bill."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/elonmusk/status/1605736689090977794
kek what did you think votes started to matter in the last couple months?
Musk doesn't know anything he hasn't personally rammed his face into. He hasn't run a central bank, and thus knows functionally nothing about national economies.
"At the risk of being repetitive, these Fed rate increases might go down in history as most damaging ever"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/elonmusk/status/1605955144000032768
Good God, imagine the Fed set interest rates at the market rate. Musk would have a heart attack and die.
Obviously he's saying this because a) Twitter has a bunch of debt, used to pay for Musk's takeover and b) apparently car-owners usually finance, meaning rate hikes might mean a lot of Tesla repossessions.
Hey, maybe at least try not to be Plato's Democratic Man.
"I've been modeling myself after Dr Jordan Peterson but not the clean
your room version of a few years ago, the current one where I'm weirdly
theatrical and break into seemingly random crying jags and dress like a
vaudeville villain"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Howlingmutant0/status/1604777944789835776
I guarantee you "like a vaudeville villain" would be a massive step up in the way he dresses.
I guarantee you this little shit would shame a man crying at a sunset or a baby's delivery the same way he shames JBP's admittedly pathological weeping. He can't tell the difference.
I would love it if "like a vaudeville villain" was the new GAE dress code. Huge improvement.
Democratic man is terrified of having a style because you might get the style wrong and catch flak. They denigrate all styles because they're afraid of someone not getting it wrong and showing them up. Everyone must dress in grunge or in beige blah.
Thinking about the Ogre Battle devil ending and moralizing.
Summary: in the devil ending a demon destroys your soul and steals your body. Problem: the punishment of real evil is far more subtle. When you oversell your story like this, it functions as an invitation, rather than discouragement.
Story: "If you do Outgroup things, you will literally die horribly."
Reality: most outgroup things are fine. They're outgroup, not inherently defective.
I don't know if you know this, but children test boundaries. When you forbid them something, they immediately want to try it, to find out why it's forbidden. What do you suppose happens when it's not forbidden for any good reason? It's not entirely restricted to children either.
Story: "If you do defective things, you will literally die horribly."
Reality: In the short term, you're actually rewarded. Only extremely stupid people suffer any kind of immediate punishment. Crime and Punishment is very much a scam story. Even the medium-term issues tend to have solutions. In the case of Ogre Battle, don't hand a literal devil the means to betray you. The lord isn't being destroyed for being evil, he's being destroyed for catastrophic idiocy. Broken Aesop.
If someone offers you a deal which is, "Let me betray you later," then it's not a good trade and you should turn it down.
Shocking, I know. To Yasumi Matsuno, it would seem, yes, very shocking.
Anyone pushed into rulebreaking for whatever reason will naturally conclude that, since they were lied to, the opposite of what they were told is the truth. Rule-breaking is good and discipline is bad. The alleged pro-virtue message is a trap.
When you lie in support of virtue, you support lies, not virtue. If you think you have to lie to defend virtue, you become a liar, not virtuous. Narcissism is not completely wrong: you in fact become what you do.
It's also showing lack of faith. You're saying you don't think virtue has rewards, and as such to gather any virtue we have to fake rewards. "Virtue isn't virtuous enough for me" would be Satan's motto.
Anyone lying in apparent defence of virtue should be assumed to be acting maliciously, not incompetently. They are behaving exactly the way a tempting devil behaves. You will find this is consistent. They do not accidentally support virtue in any situation, or at best they will revert the moment you point it out. "Oh gee that was a mistake, thanks!" Openly, not even hiding it.
Zeroth: "We are as weak as a little girl." When someone tells you about themselves, believe them.
Anyway, first: we learn that little grade school girls are in charge of freezing bank accounts in Canada. No wonder there's no standards - it's just whoever makes her cry that day. Hope she didn't watch Titanic recently.
"Sally, aren't those protesters mean and bad and also mean? Don't you think we should arrest them?"
"Ummm...." (She looks puzzled. Maybe she's thinking the bouncy castles look fun, or she's not quite fluent yet.)
"We arrest bad guys, don't we Sally?"
"Yeah mommy! I arrest them!"
Free country lol. Nice joke.
https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/GPrime85/status/1592309193255448577
Second, maskers and anti-maskers deserve each other. Maskers are hypochondriacs? Yes, indeed. Anti-maskers, also, are hypochondriacs. The surgical mask barely affects your breathing (except maybe in children, can't really try that myself). If you feel suffocated it's psychosomatic.
Indeed the fact it doesn't suffocate you may be (50%) exactly why it doesn't function as a bacterial filter. It's got those big vents all around.
Omnihypochondria. If you can't be a victim of a slave master or tyrant, you can at least be the victim of a fictive disease, right?
As always, (((America's))) problem {and (((Canada's)))} is that it's well over 80% full of (((Americans))).
"If not careful, we're going to end up in a caste system built around
truth & accuracy. The people at the top will have great info, those
in the middle decent info mixed w/ junk & propaganda, those at the
bottom pure BS. And you may be stuck in your class, security-clearance
style"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/walterkirn/status/1599857185055703042
Another theory states that this has already occurred.
Except the hardcore class caste walls are not security clearances, but biology. Just like the Indians would tell you.
Still low-key flabbergasted that all the "right-wing" "hierarchy-respecters" still haven't elected a pope. Bemusing! I should find it predictable...
Hence they quit and let you have Democracy.
Americans think it was a great victory over England that let them have America. This is nuts. First, it was Whig treachery, and second it was the French. (But I repeat myself.)
However, England could easily have re-staged in Canada and been all like, "Okay, fuck you guys." They didn't, because ultimately they didn't really want America. Was more trouble than it's worth. (Sound familiar?) Frankly, you did them a favour. They should have let it go voluntarily but you went and gave them a push.
Of course England then said it wanted full Democracy too. Having learned from the America situation, the aristocrats didn't fight it this time. "You want it? Lol, you're funny. Go right ahead."
The peasants are now bitterly complaining about the results of recent misrule.
Whose fault do you think that is, exactly?
Aristocrats: "Oh hey exactly what we said would happen. We are so shocked."
Other aristocrats: "Peasants are ignorant? Especially of history? Who knew. Who could have guessed."
Who wants to date the interval between the onset of full (alleged) peasant rule, and the world wars?
Great work everyone.
How are we supposed to know we were right if you don't go and empirically validate everything we've said?
Everything the Bible says about worldly power is true as long as by [worldly power] you mean power over social reality and/or social status. Especially social hierarchies affiliated with black governments. Giving that shit up is great for your health.
In humans, social status is inherently deviant. This is one of three major reasons humility is such a powerful virtue.
How do you avoid being cancelled? Answer: don't be terminally awkward. That's it.
"if you’re charming and attractive they let u do it"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/moonbeamdreams_/status/1604292787700211712
Normally I despise David Cole. He has a unique brand of especially retarded. I should have known everyone has their Conquest #1, though. And here you go.
Though he's still a low-knowledge pundit.
"Which brings us to another point: Kanye hadn’t built up enough cred with
“his people,” a people who are already prone to envy when one of theirs
finds success in the “white world.”"
Bantu aren't Kanye's people.
He's Igbo. Try it: "is kanye igbo," look at first result. It is not
surprising that a dissonance exists. No shit Bantu envy Igbo.
Hat tip to Covfefe.
Why did Alex Jones get sued for Sandy Hook? Because he said something we all know you're not supposed to say. He could have delivered the intended message in several other ways, but he chose the low-status way, and thus got treated like he is low status.
Is witch-hunting bad, actually? While the witches have indeed not committed any specific crime, they're not exactly genetic paragons. Witch-burning is eugenic. Being friendly and polite alone gives you like 85% resistance to being witch-hunted. Witches have the stereotype of being warty because they are generally ugly and unpleasant. Every stereotype is true, volume 12. (Well, not really, but it's a lot.)
Certainly, as the Byzantine cancer metastasizes further, the waterline for 'terminally awkward' goes up, but you're always allowed to keep your trap shut. If you don't think you're tall enough to ride, then don't, and you won't be thrown off.
However, witch-hunting has always been about being taken in by a Christian scam. "We're all God's children, we'll forgive you." Something something downtrodden, give me your tired and poor, lol. Yeah, no, that was always just a lie, and it remains just a lie. It's a trap intentionally designed to catch witches specifically so they can be violently excluded. Baiting them into revealing themselves with an obvious falsehood only a total nerd wouldn't see through. Insofar as the Spanish Inquisition was merciful to witches, they were losers; they didn't get the joke.
"Surely it can't be really that bad, or that simple!"
In short, imagine the Rotherham groomers had tried to ply their trade in Martha's Vinyard or Georgetown or whatever the British equivalents are. "One (1) phone call from the Dean to a phone number that was not 911 and that guy was evaporated." https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/05/cyberbll.html
Sure it's a pain in the ass to have to cultivate goodwill with normies to avoid getting ruthlessly bullied by the sadists and psychopaths, but there it is. I don't make the rules, I just tell you how to play to win.
If you want to talk about Hitler, Nazis, or Godwin's rule, then you can ask someone like me to phrase what Kanye wanted to say anti-provocatively instead of iconoclastically. Praising Hitler is low-status, but obsessively damning Hitler is low-status too, and you could productively point that out if you wanted. Nearly everyone who talks about Hitler comes off as a resentful person. And they should know they deserve to feel resentment, shouldn't they? (#compassionisfake #psychologicalegoism)
See also: the Feds banned some leftists from Twitter too. Sure, not that many, but the core crime is being low-status, not whatever particular rule is being busted.
The issue is that only terminally awkward bullying victims feel the need to play well enough to win hard enough to change the rules...
Put another way, if Kanye hates getting Jewed so much, he shouldn't have made so many agreements with Jews. Dude, I don't know what you were expecting.
Likewise, getting your Chase account stolen is hardly unpredictable. If you're going to go out in a blaze of glory, have you considered buying BTC first? You moron?
You also don't get to run into the projects at 1 am screaming about
how ninjas deserve to get KKK'd and then complain about racial
discrimination in law enforcement. "I tried whacking them with my noose, but they weren't scared off! Those animals!" At some point, yeah let's all blame
the victim, holy shit.
In theory, if you know female psychology well enough, you can also use this technique to avoid getting divorced. Although the general divorce rate is like 50% or thereabouts, the upper-class divorce rate is more like 15%. Chicks divorce you for being gauche, ultimately. They only marry the gauche geek in the first place because they know they can get divorced later for fabulous cash prizes.
I think this explains why Tucker Carlson keeps his job. He's well-spoken and comes across as healthy and fairly competent. Presumably, as per Cole, he's polite to folk backstage. You're supposed to be magnanimous in the noblesse oblige way, but camouflage it all as humble. Do favours for folk but always preface it with, "It could happen to anyone," or, depending on the specifics, pretend it's not a favour at all. Patronize them but let them pretend it's not patronizing. I can see Tucker pulling that off.
It's just that the modern social system rewards defectors and punishes cooperators, and you have to do an enormous amount of work to pervert it into rewarding cooperators. Being "polite" means flattering chuds, actual-deplorable leftists, grognards, and criminals. The worse they behave the more important it is to avoid "hating" on them. Because #lovespeech, lol.
It requires fancier and fancier gymnastics to exclude bad actors from your comfy social club. Indeed, this is much of why cancel culture is so manic: when someone finally gives you an excuse to exclude them, all the pent-up exclusion energy tries to ground itself through that one guy.
I also want to point out that playing by the rules (not using gynmastics) works basically fine but is far too easy. It's downright boring. The rules are childishly simplistic if you're willing to accept the putrid fallout of following the rules as written.
In any case, the system itself is low-status, and, in the fullness of time, Gnon will witch-hunt it.
Indeed, if you look at male suicide rates and female happiness since being "liberated" in the 1970s, Gnon is already witch-hunting the system's devotees.
"No one wants the job who can actually keep Twitter alive. There is no successor."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/elonmusk/status/1604628761395138561
Everything Elon has done is what I would do if I weren't aware of the lord/peasant distinction and believed in free speech. Twitter would run as well under me as under Musk, if not somewhat better. (I understand his principles better than he does, ref: ideological turing test.)
So yeah, you're right: I don't want the job.
The first problem is Twitter has to be subsidized. It is not a profitable company. He who pays the piper: if you have the government pay for Twitter, then you're not going to be allowed to make anti-government tweets, duh. (They could save a lot of money by subsidizing it openly and thus not having to do this weird scandalous runaround backdoor system for persecuting lese majeste. Just nationalize the joint.)
To change Twitter into a profitable product, you have to make radical changes.
1. A sleazy den of crime and villainy. Every other account is a porn account and the rest are scams or malware vectors. Grey market. The kind of ads you get for "free" streaming services and videogame cheat sites. It is not some weird coincidence that 4chan is a unpleasant place to visit.
2. Fuck free speech; paid speech. You have a tweet account and every tweet costs money, to pay for hosting and development. Imagine having to use Patreon revenue to bootstrap a Twitter account.
Patreon is an obvious example because the other major option is personal patronage. If you're a real genius you could work out how to revive the art patronage system as applied to specifically Twitter, to allow it to remain a money-pit.
I suppose that's the thing. "Okay, Twitter has to be paid. Tweets are not products, they are costs. If you want a public square then you need to find rich people willing to sponsor regular voters' accounts. Who's rich and likes free speech?" Of course, with individuality comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes discipline. The spam and "hate" speech issues will solve themselves organically. Anonymity can be up to individual sponsors.
Hah, like there's "insurance" which now replaces doctors working pro bono, perhaps there would be speech "insurance" allowing poor voters to tweet.
For emphasis: "free" speech is not a thing the same way a free lunch is not a thing. Style guide: always say subsidized speech. If you want subsidized speech, then step 1 is to figure out who you plan to get subsidies from.
The second problem is that the true obvious solution is to give Twitter back to the government. Doing anything else is an assassination risk. Why would anyone competent choose to accept an assassination risk as the cost of attempting to square a circle?
Absent the assassination risk I would 100% be on board with running Twitter as a challenge run. Elon sleeps there? You can only afford to pay me room/board/utilities? Works for me. Insist on egalitarian free-speech policies as a hiring condition? I can do that. The cost is that I would explicitly publish the restrictions my run labours under. (Just because my blog is never diplomatic doesn't mean I can't be diplomatic.) When I'm not allowed to do the obvious thing because it's inegalitarian or e.g. disprivileges false speech, I'm going to publicly note as such.
The third problem is that, of course, I'm an outsider. Lots of folk could run Twitter, but Elon thinks we're too icky to even consider. Haha, oops. Kind of the core problem. America has made it illegal to hire for competence. If it exists it has to stealth in through the back door.
And what self-respecting lord is going to submit to that?
The colonial government wanted to cut down on cobras, so naturally Conquest #3 ensured they made the snake rating go up. All they did wrong was pay too much per snakeskin.
The result was cobra farms. (P.S. Secure your shit, and don't try to own things you can't secure.) When the black government cancelled the bounty, the cobra farms merely released their stock, flooding the environment with extra cobras. Sure we can adjust or reform this strategy until it works less badly, but every solution will only invoke C#3 once again. Fixing it is never-ending.
The actual solution is to set the bounty lower than it costs to raise a cobra. This would also have made the farms fail less badly. Rather than worth
zero, they would have at least recouped some of their investment by
selling it below cost.
Black governments are spiritually forbidden from doing things correctly.
Every person who has ever existed exists because of sex.
If you condemn sex you condemn existence.
Seems to work in reverse too - if you condemn existence, you end up condemning sex due to the feedback.
So yeah. Don't do that.
Paperwork:
Sophists can sex "positive" only because they lionize non-reproductive fornication.
Some will naturally turn around and be like reproduction is mandatory. Punishment is their end goal.
The term 'gender' for referring to biological genitalia &c is a perfectly fine term as it renders the above sentences unambiguous.
"Why is it that loud people are always — almost always? — low class
Was it always like this?"
https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/alpharivelino/status/1604205356410105858
Yes.
Proles are aware of their own insignificance. They know if they don't loudly intrude into your life, you're apt to forget them. It's also the major driver behind graffiti. They know they will never have any noticeable effect unless they artificially induce a change in the environment.
Of course having to loudly exclaim, "I exist world! I am here!" only reinforces the impression that there isn't really anything there. "The interchangeable meatbots are squawking again." Even proles know words are only hot air, so it's addictive. The momentary relief has a chaser of even deeper existential dread.
Japan proves many interesting things, such as the fact leaf blowers don't have to be loud. Americans make them loud on purpose, either because they are proles and correctly worry you'll forget them if they're quiet, or because egalitarianism makes acting prole a fashionable thing to do.
It was presumably less bad when the prole would, at least, be significant to his children. They would know he's kinda a loser but he would still be their dad. Under monogamy he could smack his wife a couple times rather than bothering the whole neighbourhood. Not good, but less bad.
If you're a brutal authoritarian regime you can announce whatever and women at least will go along with it. Contradictory? Hypocritical? They can't even tell the difference. Say it in a manly way and literally every woman in your country will swoon from hearing it.
I guess they're allowed to admit zero covid was a terrible idea, now?
Or maybe this was the plan all along: they had some rivals in Shanghai or whatever and the point was to manipulate procedural outcomes as far as possible to damage their power base.
Most birds don't glide or soar. See also stuff like butterflies.
They fall. Constantly.
Mortals cannot consider it. The abjuration is a toxic compound of pride and insecurity.
Birds fall until they flap, and then they throw themselves back up and fall again. It's skyjumping, except they jump with their arms instead of their legs. Even the ones that do glide start falling the instant they want to gain height, as they pull back for a flap.
Birds are clearly okay with this. Indeed I've seen them playing in the sky.
Mortals are terrified.
First, the Pride: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26.
Expanding this slightly, you're "supposed to" have dominion over your trajectory in the air, you're not supposed to be an equal partner with lift and gravity. You can't fly "like" a bird, that's not dominion. You have to fly in a higher-status way. Better than a bird. Problem: bird flight is the best kind. It's a dance, not conquest. Cooperation, not defection.
The insecurity: mortals are Satan's children. A supermajority rebel against All That Is. This is inherently terrifying. They think the sky will take every opportunity to try to kill them, because mortals have implicitly declared the sky their mortal enemy. If the sky ever gets "out of control" it will immediately take the opportunity to gank them. They have to "conquer" the sky. Their prayer for flight comes in the form of a rigidly planned machine.
Gnon, in his near-infinite mercy, allowed the possibility of granting such a prayer, and lo, mortals indeed take to the sky. It costs them more than it is worth, but nevertheless it is done.
To fly properly, mortals would have to conquer not the sky, but themselves. Get over their terror of falling.
Mortals can't take to space because orbit is inherently falling. There is no "controlled" version. Dance or die. Mortals, as per the name, choose to die.
P.S. I would be very interested in knowing how pterodactyls lived their lives. I have zero confidence in paleontologists' ability to figure it out. They will imagine cope, not physics.
P.P.S. Admittedly a hummingbird can hover, but there's a scale issue. Maybe mortals should have tried to copy a hideous insect instead of a glorious raptor or whatever.
Short disproof of subsidized speech as a good: only speech with good optics will win. Only speech with bad optics needs subsidies, but you can't make unpopular speech popular by saying it more loudly, for the same reason you can't legislate back the tides. The only time subsidies matter is when it signals the black government wants the speech and thus indicates it's time to back the strong horse.
Hey, consider this stunning, mindblowing idea: subsidized speech is always pro-Regime speech. It's like he who pays the piper or something.
Again, if we're going to subsidize something, let's subsidize silence. Let's get downright inefficient levels of peace and quiet up in here. Fines for everyone who speaks in public, redistributed to all their poor victims. Speech as inherently criminal.
Elon Musk is fucked because he's an optics cuck.
"To be clear, I am generally pro-FBI, recognizing, of course, that no organization is perfect, including FBI"
He can't call a spade a spade until everyone else has already agreed it's a spade, with a few exceptions. Trend-chaser, not trend-setter. Useless.
All the Regime has to do is make his winning move have bad optics, and he won't even be able to consider it. Another theory states that this has already occurred.
More blackpill: look how badly this ponce outranks Dorsey. Dorsey had 16 years and couldn't manage what Musk accomplished in six weeks. He simply doesn't have the agency. These are your peak Americans. It's not like there's a better affordance. There are a few genuinely elite elites but they're all literally psychotic.
Plato was right about a thing: the first thing a philosopher-king wisely does is get as far away from leadership as management as possible. The scam has no hold on them.
Being a pristine victim with zero agency is just what it means to be perfect.
"Elon, face it: As long as you are not perfect in every way, you are to
blame for everything that goes wrong. Because everyone else who
criticizes you is perfect in every way and therefore has the right to
blame you for everything"
https://nitter.dark.fail/marenkahnert/status/1588625545847525377
JBP explicitly asked for the truth. Veritas was like, "Okay," and proceeded to pour high-test truth into his head. JBP refused to give up the lies, and now lives in constant agony due to the truth burning the lies all the time directly inside his skull. His face accurately reflects the sensation.
He might be praying to Satan to take the truths back out, but Satan can't answer anymore.
As an example of modern theocratic States being merely Christianity still, the Catholics banned cousin marriage because the clans' authority competed with State authority.
Now, your father's authority competes with State authority, so they're getting rid of that.
Looks like it's working just as well as breaking the backs of the clans. You can look forward to permanent genetic atomization at this rate. Bugmen? Yes, ants specifically.
Eventually, your mother's authority competes with State authority, no matter how slightly, and it has to go too.
States are literally cancer. Black government is always dysgenic.
The first priority of any healthy society is to secure itself against the State. Whatever it's trying to do, it's bad for you. Conquest's Third really really is an Iron Law.
Protestantism and Lutheranism were both emanations of Sophism.
Sophism, being OG deception worship, always cloaks itself as something else. It's more than happy to try on various disguises.
"The saying "reason is the Devil's greatest whore" was his. If we
followed what Luther wanted we'd have a Christian theocracy of sorts
without all the papist idolatry and corruption. Enlightenment skepticism
wouldn't have developed. Married clergy weeds out all the catholic
gays."
https://nitter.fdn.fr/GraniRau/status/1587745114209878016
First problem: Christianity was an emanation of Sophism in the first place. Protestantism was merely an upgrade. "Not enough Sophism. Lies more Sophism."
Second problem: Sophism, relying heavily as it does on logical fallacies, plain works better if (futilely) attempting to use logic is high status. E.g. way easier to trick folk if they're constantly getting halfway there on their own in an attempt to one-up their neighbours.
If you go full Al-Ghazali, the parasitism networks ossify and the polity stagnates. If you ban the scholar caste entirely you don't get a population
defenceless against bad scholarship, you ban the Sophists themselves. Sophism prunes its own shoots and replaces the system with one which rewards unimaginative, talentless thugs. Haha, oops. Way to blast your own foot with both barrels, Luther. Their defencelessness doesn't matter if your non-scholar rivals can ensure you don't exist...
Regardless, due to the first problem, America is very much a Christian theocracy, it merely doesn't call itself Christian so it can ignore the friction-inducing impurities in the Bible without inconvenient pests bringing them up all the time. Sophists gonna Soph. If it were instead a Lutheran theocracy it would be basically the same place except poor and thus even weaker.
--
Reminder that if you're not a lying sack of shit, you don't nail your dirty laundry to your parent's door.
If you don't like how your dad runs the place, then talk to your dad about it. His house, his rules - try to convince him your idea for the rules is better. If he won't see your side of the argument, then stapling your argument to the front door is not exactly going to make the scales fall from his eyes. "Now that you've poked holes in my lacquer, I see your point!" "I can't believe I didn't try vandalism earlier. It's always so charming."
Bro, just move out.
When Luther did move out but threw a childish tantrum in the process, he revealed he was a narcissist. Developmentally arrested. The only deeply held principle behind the stunt was, "I need narcissistic supply." The Church didn't pander enough to his grandiosity. That's the only thing he was for-real mad about.
"You look really tired," says a woman in MAC Greensmoke to another who isn't. Just once I wish the reply would be, "I am, your husband kept me up all night." Not very progressive, but hilarious."
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html
Indeed, hilarious. Problem: what happens if someone's husband really did keep a girl up all night, but it wasn't sexual? How do you communicate that?
Under this language regime, you almost can't. Even if you try to talk long enough to describe the situation in detail, they will either summarize it as the implication, or they will run out of attention span and stop listening. You practically have to use physical force to get them to hear anything except "lol I banged your mom man."
By allowing all these sly clever readings-into, you dilute, distort, and destroy the language. Autistic literalism is simply more powerful. Allist "cleverness" is weakness, it deafens you and makes you exploitable.
Well fuck me I worked out how the addressing functions on consciousness.
The basic question: why doesn't the mind follow around the individual atoms that are being used to transmit it? If the RNA strand you're copying (badly) to implement consciousness ionizes and then re-neutralizes, why doesn't your mind split off with the wandering electron instead of staying with the rest of the molecule? If you made an artificial one, would you have to somehow trap the individual particles you're measuring? You shouldn't, but why not exactly?
It's a size and resonance thing.
A mind has to have some minimum size to be coherent, because yes your mind will wander off with lost electrons - which then fall out of resonance. Meanwhile the incoming electron gets forced into resonance with the rest of the transceiver, as opposed to forcing the rest of the transceiver into resonance with the electron, because the transceiver is large compared to the individual electron.
If the total transceiver isn't large compared to individual particles, then it will have spotty reception. It will get possessed all the time due to a series of mistyped envelopes. A medium-sized one will get possessed when it gets excited and thus unstable.
Presumably even a very large brain can lose its own signal if it gets excessively overexcited. Though at the same time having a lot of memories should buffer the effect. It has to use memories of some type or another to re-boot after sleeping, and that system clearly works just fine.
At some point you have to realize the guy who wants you to prove the lobster does feel pain is a sadist.
No, you sublimely evil Satan's-shitbag pet, if the lobster doesn't feel pain, obviously you have to prove it to me.
Basically when someone argues that babies or lobsters don't feel pain, you should take it as proof that the arguer doesn't feel pain, and it should be legal to torture them for kicks.
"Prove to me you do feel pain and aren't just pretending, bro." *stab* "Hmm, I'm not convinced." *slice*
Thinking: basic historical correspondence.
You can expect Fascist censorship to be as badly affected as the climate grift was affected. The data feels almost identical to me.
None of it matters, because you don't own DOJ. It doesn't matter how badly they misbehave if you are either unwilling or unable to shoot them until they stop.
P.S. "Journalism: we report, you decide."
"Can I read the twitter files myself?"
"No."
<< ¡transparency! >>
Alternatively, you could stop using platforms owned by your sworn enemies. At least, not without employing serious camouflage.
Yes, build your own twitter. Maybe stop begging foreigners to make all your stuff and give it to you for free.
But what do I know? I'm some nonspecific pseudonymous avatar. If you take all your advice from random assholes on the internet, you're probably not gonna make it.
Let's talk about procrastination.
Blogging is a parasocial relationship, except you're not being paid, and neither am I. It is insane. Either I'm giving away valuable things for free, which is Literally Communism, or I'm giving away valueless things for what they're worth, which is a waste of everyone's time.
This is why every good blogger stopped blogging. Underpaid folk quit their jobs.
Maybe if I lived in Russia or China I would try Substack. I assume Moldbug switched from attempted-master to cope/seethe. Gray Mirror is cope for seething readers. The seethers value the cope, so Yarvin gets paid. Maybe it's more complicated than that, but it will boil down to the same sort of thing.
The other solution to parasociality is to make it a social relationship.
The correct thing to do is sort of ease into it. Start small, work up. Come online a bit like a loose connection. Unfortunately, I am autistic. It's 0-100 in 1 second flat around here.
Unfortunately, I am autistic. Having a look at my next series of posts: this habit won't go anywhere, even if I attempt it. It will be one uncomfortable post that's unpleasant to read and doesn't fit into the overall structure. On reflection, let's not talk about procrastination.
Which, in retrospect, makes sense. If there was a proper social form of blogging, someone would have tried it already. Every good blogger quit or otherwise annihilated their blogging presence, because there is no solution except to quit.
Twitter has a very noticeable split; I take it to be representative of parasocial media in general. Either the persona is all-vulnerability or no-vulnerability. Either they refuse to admit there's a mortal behind the account, or it's all feelings all the time and they hate nothing more than ideas. Pure lunar path or pure solar path, except this lunar path is a circle and the solar path is play-pretend, using shadow puppets, not chasing the sun. Parasocial media is training for narcissism and maintenance of a narcissistic culture.
You don't want to hear what's really going on with a cashier.
I could force it, but even if I did, to be honest I'm not interested in forcing it more than once or twice anyway.
Maybe it won't be completely inapplicable, so I'll be brief.
In me, procrastination is the fact that doing what I'm supposed to do is intolerable, and I split the world cleanly into supposed-to and not-supposed-to. Doing things well before the deadline is the norm-al thing to do, hence I cannot do it. Et cetera.
The solution is to notice I'm doing it. Actually, "supposed to" isn't a real thing. This silly idea is the kind of thing that sunlight disinfects. It requires concealment and covering to survive. Patronized by Calypso.
This opens up a secondary problem, which is that the only thing I really want to do is to do what I'm not supposed to do. To profit by being anti-normal, specifically. If there's nothing I'm supposed to do, which I can then contradict, I'm just kinda lost and adrift.
But this is again merely a reaction to "supposed to." Which doesn't exist. Reacting to smoke and mirrors is irrational and meaningless.
Why am I so opposed to acting obediently? If apparent obedience wouldn't support that thing I oppose, why would I violently reject it?
What is America? America is well past its prime. Senile, drooling... a stumbling, incoherent basket case who is a pervert in the worst kinds of ways.
What is Biden? Not the hero America needs right now, but the hero America deserves.
Fun fact: Joe Biden is in charge of things exactly to the extent George Washington was in charge of things.
When you get old, the veneer cracks. The polite pretenses fail. You can't keep it together anymore and the real you comes out. It's the same government it was from day 1, but they're too tired to manage the pomp and circumstance anymore.
So... did it ever occur to you that Biden is aware of how he looks on TV? At least, during his lucid moments, as rare as those may be.
Speaking of things going exactly as they should be, it seems America really is successfully being multicultural. Bantu want a fast life environment - easy, but randomly deadly. Christians want a slow life environment - stable if you win but punishing if you don't. And lo, despite sharing a country, each race is getting the environment they desire.
I have subtle ridges on my fingernails which would be big 'ol ridges if I had proper anemia, plus the correct constellation of co-morbidities.
I have an insufficiently acidic stomach, most likely due to [use it or lose it], with periods of excessive alkaline (dairy) to encourage some type-2 diabetes of the hydrochloric glands. This means I don't absorb iron easily.
My "healthy" diet, according to McGovern, lead to: calcium deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, omega-3 deficiency, severe iodine deficiency, vitamin B deficiencies, and, new entry, iron deficiency. The Ca deficit is also acid-related, probably.
Having an "unhealthy" diet of salty red meat, heavy cream, and seaweed has been unmistakably superior. Even in the extremely unlikely event that this diet costs me 10 years of life off the back, to stop eating this way I would have to be a moron.
Not coincidentally, I find vinegar delicious. I can give my gastric bits a break by supplementing meals with vinegar. As a bonus, significant vinegar limits bacterial blooms on the teeth.
Why is the background blue like that?
Anyway, it's gorgeous.
This is merely a regular photo of a layer of plant cells. It doesn't take much.
Social relationships should be free and parasocial relationships should be paid.
The archetypal parasocial relationship is the retail cashier. You make some polite noises, but the point of the transaction is for money and other goods to change hands efficiently. You don't pretend to be the cashier's friend and they don't pretend to be yours. Maybe you make some small talk, but as soon as stuff is done, you're done; nobody is being deceived about the lack of intimacy, even if the polite noises are uncomfortably friendly.
Parasocial relationships which do not follow the cashier archetype are insane.
In a social relationship, except in extenuating circumstances, money does not change hands. The point is that you both profit from each others' company, so [who exactly is profiting most] is not an issue. Everything is fine as long as it doesn't flip into being an overall loss, and if you're really friends you like the other person and try to make their time better rather than trying to milk the relationship for maximum profit. You try to offer more, rather than trying to work out how to offer less.
If you bring profit, such as money, into a social relationship, it becomes a parasocial relationship. Peace speech turns into trade speech.
Thinking of examples of insane parasocial relationships is an amusing game.
I will highlight one in particular: Socrates was correct not to take money. The master/student relationship is a social relationship. The apprentice must trust the master, and the master must care for the apprentice, or one will exploit the other. It should be a social relationship, mutually rewarding and monetarily free. If you put money on the table you guarantee it's going to be an exploitative relationship. Option 1) the teacher teaches what the student wants to hear, and thus they feel good and decide it's money well-spent. Option 2) the teacher teaches that the student morally must give the teacher more money; if they don't they're going to hell or going to global warming or going to get a bad job or whatever.
I personally think gifts and donations are fine, but if you genuinely care for your apprentice, naturally you will not fail to show up if they skip a donation. If it hinges on money, the relationship either teacher/victim or cope/seethe, not master/apprentice.
Reminder: explain the obvious to make sure you and your audience on the same page. Make it not just knowledge, but common knowledge.
E.g. when teaching math, you should always start by teaching math they already know. The point of learning is the interface between known and unknown, and you're not going to be able to guess the exact point. Hence, don't guess, go looking. Start at something they definitely know and then edge up until you hit the part they don't. Bonus: asking them [questions they know the right answer to] boosts their confidence. They shouldn't need confidence, but generally math students are children, and children are weak, so they do need it.
E.g. what is mansplaining? It is often perfectly healthy. Maybe you know and I know, but I don't necessary know that you know. The only way to find out is either to name the thing or describe it. Most small ideas don't have names. Describing an idea is to explain it.
Secondarily, it's entirely possible that you guessed wrong and you're not explaining the obvious. Don't assume, go check.
When documentation is bad, normally they flip between explaining the obvious and explaining without explanation. This is due to guessing where the unknowns interface is. Don't guess, explain such that you necessarily pass directly through the interface at some point.
The first American colony was a Communist colony.
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Explicatur1/status/1555973248981954560
The Jamestown Colony is North America's first permanent English settlement. It begins in 1607 as a commune, sponsored by London-based Virginia Company. Land is held and managed collectively. The colony's charter guarantees to each settler an equal share of the collective product regardless of the amount of work personally contributed. Of the original group of one hundred and four settlers, two thirds die of starvation and disease before their first winter. New shiploads replenish the population, but the winter of 1609 cuts the population from five hundred to sixty. In 1611, visiting Governor Thomas Dale finds living skeletons bowling in the streets, waiting for someone else to plant the crops. Their main food source consists of wild animals such as turtles and raccoons, which settlers hunt and eat by dark of night before neighbors can demand equal shares. In 1614, Governor Dale has seen enough. He assigns three-acre plots to individual settlers, which reportedly increases productivity seven-fold. The colony reverts the rest of its land to holdings in private parcels in 1619.
Basically Americans tried Communism, died horrifically, and then the adults stepped in and forcibly un-Communized them before they literally all died.
If you had a documented history of early Christianity, it would look exactly the same. They tried being themselves, got fragged by Gnon, then the adults stepped in to un-Christianize them. Sadly, the adults lived up to the selfish and lazy stereotype that children have of adults, and only un-Christianized them to the minimum necessary. They let them keep as much theology as they could. The religion was titrated to exactly the dilution that would allow it to not immediately die.
The core delusions remained. Along with the pining to live fully in a world where those delusions are true. Christianity is still Christian. They're constantly looking for ways to duck out from under adult supervision, because they think this time their false religion won't be catastrophically suicidal.
They have true faith in their solipsistic, narcissistic parochial tribalism. "This time for sure God will agree with us! Down with that nasty Devil who hates Communism!"
(Stuff like Gnosticism is a very natural, predictable result of a religion of narcissism. Christians call it heresy because it's too on-the-nose. Spoils the game. Worse, it's an evolutionary pathway toward acknowledging Reality. That's the exact opposite of their true desires, which is the Satanist urge to supplant God with themselves.)
The lag between starting to eat the seed corn and failing to have a harvest will do them in. "See, eating the seed corn is fine! There's no problems!" By the time the problems show up, it's too late to learn from them. If you adhere fanatically to an unholy religion, being rich merely lets you stretch out the lag time between mistake and comeuppance.
Maybe this time the adults will have learned and simply let them all die, rather than saving them from their own stupidity. However, I wouldn't bet on it. The adults aren't really for-real adults, they're also Christian. They saved the original Communists in the first place because of that whole saviour complex. "Being Christian is killing them but it's unChristian to let them die. Shit, it's Christianity vs. Christianity, what do we do? (Hence the 3-year delay.) We're going to come down on the side of saving them, or we condemn Christianity and would have to ditch it."
Radiation is a nutrient and most of us are deficient. When ionizing radiation goes up modestly, all-cause mortality goes down dramatically. E.g. uranium dockworkers. E.g. the cobalt-60 apartments, coincidentally, dropped all-cause mortality by 60%. That means half of all untimely deaths in all other apartments are ultimately due to radiation deficiency. Half.
You can tell a story about how the Saudis own Greenpeace and that's why nuclear plants, which compete with oil and gas plants, tend to get banned. That's true, but it's only a means.
The end is not having nuclear plants, because they are holy.
A nuclear plant quietly consecrates the ground its on, then sedately starts purifying the land around it.
They give the Satanists nasty, nasty hives.
there's really nothing to say about this but
yeah, duh
i guess we can say musk demonstrates grasp of the concept of a limited hangout
nothing here is useful or applies any meaningful pressure, but boy howdy twits will think they now know 'the full story'
copemaxxing
They say academic infighting is so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small; the culture war is so hot precisely because there's nothing to fight over.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: there is ~no culture. There's no good wood, it's rot from stem to stern. Fantastically complicated mold designed to shore up the next putrescence so the boat doesn't immediately sink. Salvage it for fertilizer, not building materials.
If you want a culture that's isn't worth significantly less than a cow fart you have to build one from the ground up. (Or be Amish.)
Don't give the zombie CPR. You get fungus ooze on your hands and then it tries to bite you.
When you've already lost, it's time to surrender. Cap the zombie right in the brain stem. Start over. Rebuild.
Or rather, don't re-build, or it will only re-rot. Build afresh. Try something different.
I'm still extremely free-speech-negative. Paid speech or GTFO. However, wow the alleged "free" American has no idea what free speech is, holy shit.
Liars are so stupid it's unimaginably stupid. I sort of intellectually understand how stupid they are, but nevertheless when I picture how stupid they are it's never as stupid as they actually are. So anyway, ideological turing test.
The whole point of free speech is that if you ban all "obviously" wrong speech you obviously ban a lot of important correct speech at the same time.
The speech that needs to be protected is immoral speech. Moral speech doesn't need protecting. You need free speech precisely because your morals are wrong and someone needs to tell you. You have to protect the speech that should be banned because otherwise you will inevitably ban the speech that needs protection.
What does [sunlight is the best disinfectant] mean? It is the faith that good immoral (""immoral"" sorry I can't let that pass, even in pretense, without comment) speech will win over bad immoral* speech. That the indefensible won't be defended. Someone who bans speech necessarily admits they are afraid of that speech. "What is it like to be so weak that mere words can hurt you?" Someone who bans speech inevitably asserts that lies are convincing - or that they are speaking lies that can't defend themselves against the truth. You can tell which one it is because they refuse to talk about the subject at all, let alone commit to a profession.
To ban speech is the height of arrogance. You assert you know the truth value of all important propositions, and have no need to be corrected.
Anyway test over let's go back to bashing free speech.
Of course that's exactly why I say there's no free speech exactly the same way there's no free lunch. [Free speech] is a moral position, not an engineering position, and like all moral positions, it is inherently immoral. A statement of intent to defect. You can't assert free speech without asserting that morality needs to be protected - but free speech is precisely the position that morality can't and shouldn't be protected. This contradiction is always resolved in favour of shackled speech. Slave speech. Fascism is worse than authority. "It's still free speech if we ban all the immoral speech, right?" Amazing. As I said earlier: the stupidity is unimaginably profound. You can't conceive of it unless you're staring right at it.
There's also the problem that speech is a kind of act. There is no sharp distinction between violent words and violent action, because to make one is to make a distinction between violent acts and violent acts. At best you can say some violence is so petty that de minimus non curat lex. Which is, again, a value judgment. How petty, exactly, is too petty? Did you want to invite the sociopathic rules-lawyers, or shall I? Gotta get that procedural outcome manipulation up ins.
What's the difference between a thoughtful but distressing critique, and a hate-filled vitriol? Epistemically speaking, the difference is consent. Sociologically speaking, you can't tell the difference in the intent of the speaker,** you can only see the difference in whether the listener intends to reject it or not.
**(I can easily spot the intent of the speaker, but that only matters if you trust me, in other words if you have already decided my speech shouldn't be banned, in which case I can simply assert they should be banned without justification.)
Unless of course you're omniscient already and don't need anyone to speak, what with already having all important truths.
Logically the response is to ban unfree listeners, I suppose.
Which, on reflection, is kind of the obvious first solution any good-faith thinker would come up with. Only a liar or a drooling idiot would try anything else before very thoroughly ruling out the idea of banning "hate" listeners.
Here you go: https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/55114/the-type-specialist
Closely follows Japanese norms by including all the social boilerplate. How are you supposed to maintain your middle class standing if you skip any formulaic repetition? That's, like, disrespectful.
Author: "After exchanging pleasantries, we..."
Middle class author: *painstakingly describes every pleasantry*
Ever wanted to know what their manic, delusional crazes looked like from the inside? Fear not, here's a first person perspective.
Normal person: "I spent months freaking the hell out about something that did not remotely happen. Maybe I shouldn't let my emotions get so unmoored next time around?"
Middle classer: "Shit! I'm not freaking the hell out about nothing! I need a new death spiral, STAT!"
Look guy, this isn't an Assassination Classroom isekai. It's heckin Pokemon. Not exactly Danganronpa. If you reveal your 'otherwordly knowledge' most likely...fuck all will happen.
Have you considered...feeling a guy out? Call him up for a chat, see what kinda guy he seems like to you.
"Ooooor...I could spend subjective years of my life brooding in ever more neurotic ways!"
Yes....yes you could do that.
"I'll do it alone!"
Ummm
"By myself!"
First arc: there was a villain. Stuff almost happened, but nothing did.
(The worst consequence was that one of the minor villains, who we'll never see more than twice, got a scar.)
Normal person: "Huh, it is heckin' pokemon after all. Probably we can deal with it."
Middle classer: "There is A SECOND VILLAIN HOLY CRAP OMG OMG"
What horrible crisis will this new villain cause?
Oh noes, the villain is looking at me! Unclean! Unclean!
"He glanced around the room once more, and I held back vomit as he stared at me for a few seconds longer than everyone else."
Truly an unbearable calamity.
Could you hold it together? If someone looked at you this one time, the day you met?
He's so brave for tolerating an awkwardly long glance.
Bonus round: the other heroes still exist. If he did nothing, they would take care of it, it would merely take longer.
Speaking of social boilerplate. the guy takes a big risk at the start, because he doesn't have anything to spend on bootstrapping himself except his safety. It's not a character moment or anything, it's an exigency. (When they're not brooding and virtue signalling, the middle class tends to act relatively sensibly. "Why did you do that?" "I don't wanna talk about it." Of course. Figures.)
Naturally we are treated to every other character properly scolding him for something he is already not going to do again. What if someone thought the author encouraged such behaviour? We can't have that, now can we? It would be...Inappropriate!
Plus, you know, it's heckin' pokemon. The book is PG-rated. Nearly G. He can't die, he can only be "defeated" or faint.
P.S. Pretty sure that specifically the middle class should not only not have free speech, but should be banned from speaking in public at all, for any reason. No speeches, no ads, no presentations, no lectures, no non-private tweets, no carnival barking. No talking to strangers at all without an invitation. If it rises above "bloke down the pub told me" dey banned. Fine them even if they shout fire in a theatre that is, in fact, on fire.
