Bears Repeating: Don't Need Scientific Permission

In short, if a study author is dumber than you, then if you disagree with them, it is overwhelmingly likely that they are wrong, not you.

If you're not reading this blog for the first time today, then with p < 0.05 between 98% and 99.5% of scientific paper authors are dumber than you. Epistemically speaking, you have total impunity for disagreeing with them. 

It's very important to get good enough at thinking that you can give yourself permission to believe things, rather than waiting for "scientific" permission. Believing in modern scientific papers is not a serious option. There is no shortcut to replace good reasoning and good judgment.

Modern scientific papers are not refined metal, they are raw ore. They are a source of hypotheses to test, not, in any way, the test themselves. No refinement happens before they reach your worktable.  

The only thing the whole paper/experiment does that a simple IQ test wouldn't do is to filter out the liars. If you knew in advance that you could win arguments by pulling out your IQ ID card, then what incentive do you have to tell the truth? There has to be some unforgeably costly demonstration of truth-telling.

For your own personal use, you already know if you're arguing in good faith or not, so you can use the simple IQ test. Bonus: the length of a paper is more than enough writing to accurately gauge someone's IQ. You can intuit that crud and move on with your day. 

Even in the unlikely event that a paper is by someone smarter than you, it merely means you have to read beyond the title or abstract. Now you have to filter out the liars the hard way - or perhaps, simply ignore too-smart papers as economically inefficient ore.
Which, you may notice, means modern scientific papers go in the entertainment section. Neither smarter nor dumber are worth much. Read for fun, not for profit.

The Solution to Culture War is Surrender

The culture war happens because the society is obviously not okay, meaning someone around here has to be not okay, so it's time to start a witch hunt. Problem: you find the witch, you burn the witch, but it doesn't solve anything because it's not the fault of your fellow peasants. You end up in an endless war, because you refuse to attack the enemy.

It's especially bad because, even when you finally purity-test everyone to hell and back and get together with your fem-bros, the society is still obviously not okay. Leftists all hate each other, but they somehow have to blame Trump for the fact they can't get along even when they're alone with each other. "Stereotype threat," lol. The mental gymnastics require Herculean cognition. Lots of strain on the ol' thinker. 

The enemy is yourself, by the way. You're staying with a society that's obviously not okay, rather than ditching it.
Either it's your society, as in you personally own it, or it isn't. If it is, you could just change it. You can't change it, so it isn't yours. Either conquer it or Exit. Don't blame some random hapless man-child.
The physical owner of the society unquestionably hates himself. He's deliberately maintaining a society that's obviously not okay.
It probably became not-okay because he hates himself, and he wanted and needed to punish himself. Mission successful.

I realized this because I was thinking about the college dorm. We had LAN parties, and they were pretty neat, which, socially speaking, meant everyone said: "You are basically okay," to each other. We could get along because we all saw the local society as basically okay. There was no significant blame to apportion out.

This requirement is a serious problem if society is basically not okay. 

The culture war happens because the culture is already dead. It's a symptom of zombie countries. You already fucked up terminally. Black society. 

Once a culture war starts, it's time to surrender. Easily let the witches run free, because it doesn't matter anymore. If you try to hunt them all that happens is you get dirty and the pig likes it. 

Once society is basically not okay, you have to quit. Trash it. Start over. Your options are to struggle, fight, pay every cost, ""sacrifice,"" and then lose anyway, or to skip to the end. 

If you stay with this society, I have to assume you hate yourself too. Husbands and wives deserve each other.

On the plus side this means both sides are destined to lose. Leftists are, also, completely fucked. Which makes sense, on reflection. They're rebelling against Reality per se. Gnon can do nothing but laugh.

Under Fascism, both left and right less-left feel like they're the underdog. Like they're both suffering under horrible tyranny. Counter-intuitively, this intuition is complete, correct, representative, and relevant. They are in fact being horribly oppressed. Nobody is winning. Nobody is happy. 

Well, I'm winning, and the Amish are happy. But, look, edge cases. Negligible. Exceptions that merely prove the rule. 

Though, I suppose since the source of the problem is self-hatred, everyone is winning. They receive the agony they want and need. Tyranny is the point and the goal. Strife and war is the end, not the means. Mission successful.

Reminder: Weaponize the Mods

I recently tested it in a live exercise. Someone on the Nova Drift steam forum bothered me, so I got him permabanned.

I probably overkilled. First I riled him all the way up into a frothing rage, then reported him with my Machiavellian manipulation module turned up to 10. Poked the dog until it bit, then had him shot. You likely don't need to get this fancy, but sometimes I like to swat fruit flies with my bazooka. 

The Machiavellianism super worked: they had to wait until they forgot I instigated the moderator procedure, meaning officially I was not involved at all. There is no formal/public and likely no private record of my involvement...meaning I could repeat this almost indefinitely without anyone noticing a pattern, as long as I don't deliberately invite comparison by copy-pasting the Machiavellian paragraphs or something.

It's actually immoral* not to weaponize the mods. Or the laws, for that matter. If you don't weaponize them, it just means someone more unscrupulous than you will weaponize them; generally, against you in particular.

*(morality isn't real, but you know what I mean)

Any forum (or society) which pretends mods (or laws) aren't for weaponizing is merely begging to be weaponized. If you don't have everyone annoying and inconvenient banned, you're merely giving them a chance to have you banned out of jealousy. The more stridently they claim to be fair and balanced, the better camouflage they supply to Machiavellian manipulators. Ask me how I know. 

 

For example, you could weaponize Titania McGrath's bit.
Have you ever noticed that Transgressives like to repeat every unsavoury rumour about Bantu? What if you dialled that up to 11? Every day, exclaim how racist it is to say that 13% commit 54%. Don't forget to be especially clumsy about it when you offer endorsements. "It's just evil to suggest that women might be deeply specialized at taking care of babies."
"It's horribly classist to suggest that 98% of Americans are functionally illiterate, incapable of finding a phone number on a web page if it's not labelled specifically 'phone number!' Studies have found that 50% of the population don't read signs because they can't, but only because science is white supremacist!"
No enemy can do as much damage as a stupid ally; ergo, weaponize stupidity. Be the stupidest ally they could possibly fear.

 

Exception: if someone is a known honourable cooperator, then don't weaponize the mods against them. It's worth putting up with their annoyance, even if the alternative weren't a pointlessly destructive arms race. You'll find the honourable tend also to be competent. Unlike the folk who weaponize mods even when it's frowned upon, the honourable are hard targets. Harder, at least.

Samus Really is a Tranny

Samus is an autogynephile. He's a 40-year-old man, probably autistic, except [it's the future] so gender-reassignment surgery actually gives you a womb. 

If you've been passive-aggressive, then you're more feminine than Samus is. 

(My favourite is Metroid Prime 1. I just wish it had a hard mode, instead of a take-longer mode.)

It's really this simple: if you can't tell she's a gril while still wearing the suit, she's not a girl. The "reveal" comes off as a surprise because there's no way you could have known. 

What part of Samus says female to you?
Archaeology?
Obsessively scanning non-person objects?
Violently hunting down space pirates, killing them at the drop of a hat?
Do the missiles have a curvy flight path I'm not aware of?
Is there something particularly empathetic about shooting through walls?
Total isolation? The absolute introversion?
Keeping her mouth shut so tightly her voice doesn't give it away?

Samus is a man. He's just drawn with a girl's body, because why not? It's prettier. Mario's just a drawing too, he might as well have had tits instead of a moustache. Peach can be a lesbian, it'll be progressive.

 

P.S. Traps. Someone draws a girl, and then they draw a dick on the girl because they hate themselves. If you like traps because you like cute girls, just draw a girl. If you like traps because you're gay, just draw a dude. There's no excuse for this φαγγωτρυ.

P.P.S. A lot of anime heroines are just men drawn as hot chicks, with a bit of lace around the edges so he/she/it doesn't completely come off as one of the boys. Unlike Samus, who totally does. If she reacts to witnessing violence by drawing her sword, that's a dude, bro. You can tell for sure because they never shit-test. I don't see a problem with this as long as you keep the fact it's escapism in mind. Girls aren't like that IRL for good reasons.

P.P.P.S. Metroids are absolutely fantastic metaphors for demonic spiritual parasites. Letting Mother Brain kill the last real one low-key ruined the series, which was probably the intent. Samus would have been fine if you'd just run off to lick your wounds, retard. Or even if you had a) finished killing MB or b) not hesitated. Swoop through the wall so MB has time to wind up? Yeah. Great work moron. It's not real self-sacrifice if you die for no reason. Anyway self-sacrifice is γαυ.

P.P.P.P.S. So you can dodge every point of damage in Metroid Prime 1. This plays poorly with the fact that if you're good at exploration Samus ends up with hundreds and hundreds of health. One or the other, guys. This is game design 101. Imagine you're playing DQ4 except Ragnar can get armour so good all damage is reduced to 0. Frankly this is insultingly easy. Then we have a "hard" mode where the enemies have twice as much health. It doesn't matter! They still can't kill you, or even look threatening! It would genuinely make sense to have criminal penalties for game design that fucked up.

Point Out Non-Hypocrisy

If you want to have a living mind instead of joining the herd of NPCs, then one example life-affirming habit is to point out when a public speaker is not hypocritical. Simply assume everything spoken in public is a hypocritical lie, and demonstrate this by pointing out with surprise and pleasure when something is an exception to this rule. 

First, speaking with approval about the outgroup (when they're not lying) detaches you from being a hive-mind adjunct. There's no point in having a brain if all you're using it for is to copy the next brain over. Mirrors are not living beings. 

Second, you focus on the positive instead of getting mad about things you cannot control. Why, you might even learn something!

Third it's just good practice, on both positive and negative. Don't pretend to be surprised when someone is a hypocrite, especially a Democratic politician (or other religious nutjob). Bearing false witness against yourself is self-betrayal. Meanwhile, you practice specifically searching for denials of your hypothesis, rather than confirmations. 

To be explicit, the norm where public speakers are assumed to be speaking in bad faith is plain good sense. It's absolute barking mad lunacy to attribute any trustworthiness at all to a public speaker absent strong evidence to the contrary. Pointing out that this liar is lying is nothing but special pleading; no shit they're lying, do you think I'm an idiot? So is everyone else! Or are we playing explain the obvious? Did you know the Sun rises in the morning? I bet, if you check, you'll find bachelors are unmarried.

Finally, there's an outside chance that you incentivize good behaviour via reward, which is known to be more effective than punishment. What do you suppose would happen in a society where it's normal to thoroughly ignore someone except for the one part they told the truth? Dunamophilic, rather than dunamophobic. 

Christian Altruists Are Opposite-Day Heroes

The Christian heroes are all altruistic, which makes them callous altruists, which makes them not-heroes. They're defectors or stooges.
E.g. Frodo is a stooge. Superman really is super: he's both a defector and a stooge. He conquers Metropolis, and of course he's a journalist, but then he gives the city back.
This makes nearly every Christian story ultimately a piece of shit. They may struggle and fight against this social requirement to make their core protagonist a worthless nega-hero, and may even succeed in implying a genuinely good story, but the stories as actually written are sewage.

In a sense the anime harem limp-noodle "protagonist" is satire. "Isn't this exactly what you're going for? Looks pretty horrible, doesn't it?" And yes, that does appear to be the intent. If your story is properly socially-approved, your protagonist becomes, rather obviously, not-a-protagonist. They become a soulless prop. The reason it's a harem is to efficiently satirize the lack of chemistry found near the heroines of several stories, rather than having to do them all individually. "Why is she attracted to him?" The answer is "kindness," in other words, being a socially-approved Christian, in other words, she isn't, except plot.

The police want to arrest Batman because he's a defector. It's hint-hint nudge-nudge; they're not incorrect. Batman, naturally, increases crime. (So much the cops are jealous.) He punches criminals such that there will be more criminals to punch tomorrow. You can't write a Batman comic where Batman actually, you know, succeeds in his alleged goal. I guess that means he's also a stooge.

I figured this out by contemplating Okage: Shadow King. https://lparchive.org/Okage-Shadow-King/ When you first see this game, it's rather compelling. Ari has lots of dialogue choices where he doesn't have to be heroic. Only, what's not-heroic about it? Ari comes across as real and honest, rather than fake and gay. Oops.
The NPCs in Okage are comedically socially inept. In other words, they're the exact same NPCs you find in basically every RPG, except they don't veil their rude and horrific solipsism. The only real difference is that they don't see any reason to be ashamed of their behaviour, so they don't hide it.

There's lots of collateral damage in Superman comics because, as I hardly need explain, when a conqueror launches his invasion, shit gets smashed.

Even if you can't put words to it, especially if you've been exposed to enough Okage, you can tell there's just something off about Christian so-called heroes. Unless of course you're the target audience of Saturday morning cartoons...
Ari isn't nice because they're not nice to him. Or rather, he at least has that option. You can play him as someone with self-respect if you want.

Let's not forget the Spider-man Disney-effect. You can only be a hero if you don't have parents. "Discard your community so you can embrace, uh, love..." Why can't Hermione or Ron be the hero? Answer: still have parents.
Further, lol at the broken Aesop: "Journalists suppress heroism." Indeed. Can't disagree.
Spider-man has to keep his identity secret because "the masses" usually think he's a menace. What if that's because he's, ultimately, a menace? In-universe Spider-man looks defective because he's defective. Out-of-universe Spider-man looks like a nerdy stooge because he's a stooge. "Only Parker can deal with Doc Ock!" Really? Some random atomized asshole can make a mecha-suit and the military can't? Only Spider-man can deal with Doc Ock such that it doesn't stick and he's back next week so we can have another issue of Spider-man.

Same way Luke, to avoid "embracing hate," can't just kill Palpatine, let alone Anakin. If the Empire is evil, ultimately the saviour of Star Wars is heckin' Vader. Turns out the original prophecy was right after all, except it turns out Sith are good and Jedi can only let evil happen.

Same way Jehovah imprisons Satan in such a way that Satan conquers the whole world.

What a fucking loser.

Naw

"You should propose in public because she'll be so scared of everyone booing her that she'll have to say yes"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/SCHIZO_FREQ/status/1606465993252929538

You should maximize the chance she says no but be so awesome she says yes anyway.

Invite her to a date to a full garbage can, ideally during a summer heatwave. Not even a whole landfill, just one can. Don't say anything. Hand her a packet of skittles with "marry me" all lowercase typed on a post-it note stuck to the plastic, walk away before she can answer.

Dissent is Largely in Error & Irresponsible Rightists

"Right vs. Left (1-factor model of politics) not very predictive of ideological stances among low-information voters, but highly predictive of ideological stances among high-information voters 

counter-intuitively, the more you know, the more you see things in black and white"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/0x49fa98/status/1602383501159956484

No.

 

They're both trying to conform to parasitic memeplexes. Skilled operators make it look black-and-white because conformity is the point and they fail less. There's two because voting is one-dimensional and thus produces two sides. (There's a game theory thing I'll go over later.) However, dumb folk aren't good at conforming. They keep getting confused or plain get it wrong. They try to conform but can't manage it.

For example, smart IFLS folk know they don't love science. They get the joke. They can tell the difference between Science and, like, scientific papers, and will reject any science that's not Scientific.

Obvoiusly, dumb folk can't follow this line of thought. They'll occasionally do dumb things like read the papers themselves, or, even worse, do the experiment themselves. They buy into the camouflage and let it lead them astray because they genuinely don't know any better. (Evil is self-destructive; the friendly fire is inevitable.)

Also, IFLS doctrine changes quick and they often get left behind. Indeed part of the point of the IFLS doctrine is to be a griggs/power-dodging IQ competition. You need to be this smart to ride.

I would also like to point out that some off the less dumb (but still dumb) IFLS hosts will notice the doctrine changes quickly and try to get out ahead of it - being a trend maker instead of a trend follower. Except they're dumb and can't guess correctly. They get Dunning-Krugered; they produce random noise as output. 

Ref: Spanish Inquisition. Peasants don't notice dissenters are usually just confused out of honest stupidity, but the Catholic authorities liked their large mass of warm bodies, so the Inquisition was set up to gently lead most dissenters back into proper conformity, like they wanted all along.

 

Game theory lets a central party capture all fringe parties. Voting republicant may not make a neo-nazi happy, but what are they gonna do instead, vote demobrat? As such the two real parties in a voting system cuddle up to each other to capture the maximum voters they can, getting as close as possible without actually appearing to overlap. 

I suppose two-party voting is particularly stable because it maps easily onto the pre-existing distinction between insider (has kratia) and outsider (wants kratia). This is likely the basic cause of the electoral birth defect. The in-power party adores everything that keeps them in power, and this monomania is what gets them in power in the first place. Meanwhile the out-power party despises everything that keeps ingroup in power, and adores everything that would put the outsiders in power if they weren't too gormless to pursue it. Black and white. 

Nothing to do with truth, however. Most of the time both of them are flagrantly wrong about everything. Black vs. black. What with being competitors in a black government competition. 

And thus the right-sided parasite hosts are convinced their irresponsibility is a kind of responsibility, even though it's merely conditionally less irresponsible than the high-O low-C parasite-plex.