Dglgmut

In the first clip he implies the definition of free will to be the ability to choose what one desires, then immediately after uses "free will" in the context of the ability to make one's own choices ("our predetermined choices"). It looks like he's going to dive into a lot of irrelevant complexity to solve a much simpler issue. You cannot use data to negate the fact that we are conscious and aware, and that our consciousness interacts with the physical world.

If anything starts a civil war it would probably be something like this. If the government tries to significantly regulate the Internet, what's left of freedom of expression/thought? I saw a comment on an MSN article about Elon letting Trump back on Twitter. Someone said something like, "Good. Give the Fed's an excuse to regulate it." There's people that actually want that...

Rand wrote about a secular collectivist/altruist ethic that was essentially a religion that replaced God with "society". I think a mistake here is the idea that people are mainly driven by their desire to be ethical. People do not need God because they need something to serve. They need God because they need something to guide them. In many ways God represents a father, or a leader of a tribe. God is the top of a dominance hierarchy. God represents leadership itself. Rand is right that God has been replaced, but not with "society" and not for the purpose of giving people something new to sacrifice themselves for. Leadership has been replaced. People have been convinced that they do not need leaders to tell them what to do... and in the place of the leaders we have installed something without human faults... The System. We believe that a system can exist at the top of a dominance hierarchy, for which no man is above. No man is above the law. We have an abstraction leading society. The system is our new god. The system was designed with the primary function of protecting victims. Thomas Sowell said whenever you create an incentive for something you inevitably get more of that thing.

I think "story" should be more defined. There's a difference between an explanation and, say, a novel. They are related, but not the same. That's the original problem I had with the idea that we think in stories. If the only definition someone has for a story is "it has a beginning, middle, and end," well, that doesn't really mean anything.

There's only a couple threads I could find talking specifically about victim culture, and this one is more recent so I'll revive it. Just wanted to throw out a theory about victim culture, and more specifically the weaponization of victimhood. I think the reason it has happened in so many places at different times is quite natural. Society requires codified law to function, and because of this masculine behaviour is restrained. Committing crimes is not masculine, generally speaking, however there are some masculine acts that become criminal under the rigidness of a legal system meant to judge everyone equally based on decontextualized criteria. Sometimes the legal "victim" is not the real victim, but because we favor systems over leadership/authority, playing the victim becomes a powerful weapon. With any weapon comes fear, and with fear comes a shift of social dynamics. As it becomes more accepted that victims have power, it becomes a bit of a vicious cycle of people trying to get on the winning team, as victims themselves or as allies to victims. The simple answer to why the left is so violent--because the police protect them.

I am comfortable with the idea that humans must think in stories. The way I think of it is that there is a limit to how abstractly we can think, and there needs to be some reference to our lived experience for our ideas to have any coherence. Our brain is not made to reason, that is only part of what it does. Our brain's most primary functions allow us to act in a way that will keep us alive in the short term; reasoning and abstract thought is something that came later in evolutionary terms, and therefore must interface with the software that tells us to drink when we're thirsty and allows us to recognize water as such.

This is the same thing with the vaccine propaganda. Most people would think that bots on Twitter would not have any effect on an intelligent person's evaluation of the situation, but I believe even stuff like this can sway very smart people. It does have an effect on the masses, and when you create any social pressure to have a particular opinion you make contrarian thought more effortful... which means even smart people will avoid, to some degree, the entertaining of ideas that contradict the narrative.

I didn't see anything about the Oakville shop teacher on here so not sure if people understand the meme above or not. This is the story: Oakville teacher shocks students by wearing huge prosthetic breasts to shop class WWW.BLOGTO.COM Video footage and photos of a Toronto-area high school teacher are blowing up online today, sparking a raucous debate about what... Leftists have been defending this man, which is ridiculous to all normal people. However there is more to the story, apparently...

He was being tongue in cheek. Meaning people saying there was election fraud had their chance to uncover some good evidence and they didn't. I don't agree in terms of what is right and wrong... but in terms of power/politics, it's a game that Republicans aren't good at playing. They're constantly celebrating prematurely and thinking their principals will somehow protect them from real life monsters.

Potential fabrication in research images threatens key theory of Alzheimer’s disease WWW.SCIENCE.ORG A neuroscience sleuth challenges data showing one toxic form of amyloid protein is a cause of brain condition Here's the article for anyone interested. Published Jul 21.

It's been hot but not ridiculous. I'm sure young people drop dead for mysterious reasons from time to time, but my gut says this is not normal. The number I've heard is that all cause morbidity is up about 40% all over the world. You could also connect it to COVID itself, since most people have had COVID at least once by now (I just recently got it, no symptoms really aside from a migraine that had me in bed for 3 days -- on the 4th day I was well enough to work from home).

Jesus...

The dominance of the Left is surprising in a sense when you consider that they select negatively for competence. As covered in the Biological Leninism essay, competent people cannot be relied on by the party of the Left, because competent people have the option to leave and succeed on their merits. The most dependent people are those who naturally have low social status. But the Left is dominant. The general acceptance of human equality is a big factor in that: one person, one vote. You wouldn't be able to convince people in any Western country that some people deserve more political influence than others, and that some should possibly not have a vote, and others should have two or three, or more. Even though democracy is not the perfect system, I think it is one we will be stuck with as I don't see people tossing aside their value of equality any time soon. So ultimately the battle between ideologies (meritocracy vs equity/free-status-elevation-for-the-undeserving) comes down to votes. The army on each side is an army of voters. In a real war, recruiting soldiers is a crucial step in winning. This is where the Left is killing the Right. The main problem for the Right is that by selecting for competence, they are siding with the 20 in the natural 80/20 split. Some of the 80 who believe they are part of the 20 or could be part of the 20 or feel connected to the 20 may side with the Right... but the Right is not doing enough to attract soldiers. The Left promises status to those without status. What does the Right promise? Principles. How many people are attracted to a party because of principles?? In the US you have a lot of young people can't do basic math, have no skills, are addicted to junk food and pornography... how are you going to attract these people with principles? I think the dilemma for any successful political party in a degenerate society is between offering free status and offering free stuff. Yes, the Left offers free stuff, but they don't really deliver. They usually take whatever they can for themselves and a few crumbs make their way to the people who "need" them. The other problem is the Left ruins economies, which is where the free stuff would have to come from. Of course the party of the Right can be bad in these ways also, but that is a party thing and not an ideology thing. Ideologically the Right is for meritocracy and competence. The solution for a successful Right wing party, to gain power through democratic means, is to buy soldiers--just like might be necessary in a real war. Leveraging a much higher level of competence at managing both the government and economy, promising cash to those who might otherwise be offered status from the Left, the Right could actually succeed. This is my conclusion after all the black-pilled dissecting of Leftist strategy/nature.

That's like hoping for new competition for Coke and Pepsi. People trust in bigger organizations, because those organizations became big by building trust in the first place.

Honestly I am not that familiar with him. I heard about his IQ Shredder post a while ago, and read that... but nothing since until this Biological Leninism theory. He does make a little bit too many grammar and syntax errors to be taken too seriously, but I think he does pick up on things that are important and true. I also find "hate" off-putting, but it's hard to tell what is real hate and what is a reaction to being told what to say and think. There are people who make it a moral point to counteract the "safe-space" mentality pushed by the mainstream. Regardless, you never have to agree with a person 100% to get something from their thoughts. One thing I take away from his writing is that there really isn't a difference between peace and war. People never stop clamouring for status, and there will always be resentment between groups. Even though there is not open violence, in times of peace people are still positioning themselves to make the changes they want to make--and a healthy society needs a defence against this.

Back on topic: I understood the root of power to be loyalty, pretty soon after creating this thread. Power is definitely in numbers, as human beings are the most dangerous things on this planet. To make people fear you, if that's how you use your power, first you must have people that will follow you. I didn't think about it much more than that... now I've found this: https://spandrell.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/ Here is a good video reading over some of the post with additional commentary. This is a very incisive theory on how power can be built through false compassion and the mechanics of why it works. Highly recommend looking into this, as it is very elucidating.

China, probably India, and Saudi Arabia? Oh no, what will those countries ever do without the American goods they exchange your dollars for? The USD is seriously in jeopardy right now.

Well, it makes sense. Even in a non-conspiracy theory way. Of course our gain of function technology is going to be closely tied to our vaccine technology. Which kinda defeats the whole point of GoF in the first place... We made the vaccine so we could make the virus so we could make the vaccine so we could be prepared for the virus (should it ever occur naturally)! Unfortunately the virus got out during step 2...

Data and stories are never scientific. And that's all we have, regardless of whether you are a doctor, scientist, or neither. The only thing scientific is reproducible experiments. Nobody has that right now. Nobody. Of course... but how does this follow from what you wrote above? The question is, "what can get them killed?" You keep referring to science, then working on assumptions... oh, and stories you saw, which are one side of a coin that we've seen the other side of many times in this same thread. Except those stories actually have weight when they go in the other direction, because they are dis-confirming evidence. You are arguing based on the established narrative. Your stories mean nothing, because the narrative is "we know for certain." Knowing for certain isn't proven by 10 stories, 100, or a million. It's either disproven or it's not. And once it's disproven, it's supposed to be over.

The idea of any doctor making any recommendation with confidence, unless that recommendation is to be careful/moderate, should be a red flag to anyone knowing how quickly "Science changes".

I agree with this. I support the truckers, but I always thought a strike (even a general strike, with many productive types) was more effective and harder to criticize. But still... they're far more correct than their opposition.

Sometimes you get a glimpse of someone's world view and you wonder if they're dumb or something. Then they do something like this and you realize, yeah, they were just really dumb the whole time. I've actually seen a bunch of social media posts supporting Trudeau. It's crazy how many idiots are out there that have no idea they're idiots.

Ford is not a shark. He has lost virtually all of his base, and nobody cares if he says some reasonable things about the unvaxxed now, after what he has said in the past. He may be Premier again, due to lack of alternatives. Who knows... But he will not climb any higher.

In a reply someone mentions that Quebec is preparing a digital ID that could subsume the vaccine passport... This may not be anything to be happy about. Whenever I see people on the Right celebrating I always think of Curtis Yarvin's claim that people on the Right always think they're winning, while people on the Left always think they're losing, when in reality it's the other way around.

They waited until late December to cancel the trials?.. I heard about the false HIV positives 7 months ago from Dr. Sam Bailey. Her take, which I agree with, is that the antibody test which is used to diagnose HIV is just as questionable as the experimental vaccine itself. There is no HIV virus in the vaccine, so there is no way the positives could be anything but false. However, if these tests are "our best" way of detecting HIV in the first place, maybe the whole public concept of HIV is wrong. The inventor of PCR (who hated Fauci), also openly questioned the connection between HIV and AIDS after he could not find an acceptable source for his own writings where he intended to assert the relationship as an established fact. This video was from last July. I set the video time to where she talks about this story. Covid-19 Shots, Cancer and HIV ODYSEE.COM What is the link between Covid-19 shots, Cancer and HIV? Watch the video to find out more... Please support my channel...