Twitter cuts (#134)

Sorry, one more.
How is progressivism like sickle cell anemia?

May 4, 2017admin 48 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Ideology

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

48 Responses to this entry

  • Michael Rothblatt Says:

    Hey Admin, seen what the crazies are doing these days?

    [Reply]

    DFK, Jr. Reply:

    Jealous much?

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Horrified and dissapointed as a matter of fact. Dissapointed with myself, with the fact that I used to respect those people. Horrified at the prospect of their ideas actually getting traction and the world ending up with another USSR. I just happen to think that one can disagree with liberalism without being retarded about it.

    [Reply]

    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    Seems like they completely disregard bottom-up organizational processes (like free trade) because they “don’t believe in them”. Power only comes from the state, hierarchically propagating down, and anything else is a lie to destroy your enemies!
    (“Equality, human rights, free trade” are certainly used as pretense for shaming and punishing enemies of a powerful group in the west, they have a point there, but that doesn’t mean it’s all complete crock)

    This is not the lesson I’d take from burying the 21th century. On the contrary, issues are complex and more and more out of control. Believing it can just be brought under control is escapism, a power-trip fever dream.

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    “Biology and economics don’t real, ’cause I say so.”

    Essentially yes. Not to mention the delusion of thinking that simply putting someone in charge would actually solve the problem. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander–if the current state of affairs benefits the ruling conspiracy, then it would also benefit the holder of collected and undivided imperium. There’s no reason to assume that their absolute sovereign would not be arch-progressive. In fact, having someone hold the collected and undivided imperium could, quite possibly, exacerbate the problems because he would face no opposition. Thus instead of having to resort to going around the corner to establish what they want, the powers that be could simply directly, and unimpeded implement them. So, if they wanted to control the economy, instead of passing regulations and granting favors they would simply nationalize everything. If they wanted cheap labor for example, they would simply ban exit, open up borders, and institute the maximum-wage laws. If they wanted everyone dependent on the state instead of on subsidiary institutions, rather than having to institute feminism, and LGBTQQIA+ rights they would simply abolish the family directly, and make every child raised without the family by the state in state-run educational institutions to ensure the maximum loyalty to the sovereign. Etc. etc.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    nice reading to cure insomnia, helped me well yesterday.

    [Reply]

    Uriel Fiori Reply:

    RF rebirth?

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Obviously. But with other contributors also.

    [Reply]

    Tsaekasith Reply:

    I think there needs to be a serious engagement with RF’s project in these parts. Its clearly a thousand times more trenchant a critique of what admin says here than sclerotic appeals to the brotherhood of human sociality under Goldman Sachs and the NHS. It deserves a more thorough response. Democratic Humanism is dead, the fight of the present is over which ideals will replace it.

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    There does not. Chris is an imbecile. And Enlightenment rationalism is a sham. Everyone believes what he wants to, regardless of the truth, thus redering engagement pointless. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Ideals that have the biggest guns on their side will win out.

    If actual fascism-in-power has failed, warmed-up Internet pseudo-intellectual variety has no chance of success. I for one, believe that progressives know what they’re doing, and that neither populism, nor Internet fascism can dislocate it. Don’t let the appearance of crisis fool you. All these manufactured crises were manufactured exactly because the crises benefit the Cathedral. The current crop of populist resistance is most likely the last one. Panem et circenses, with the advent of sex-bots and VR-porn the populace is going to be pacified like never before.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    You may not like me but I like you Mr. Rothblatt, yet I’d make this more accurate

    Everyone believes what he wants to, regardless of the truth

    It’s not regardless of the truth, but in variations of regard for the truth. Truth meaning the actual; i.e. accurate information such as required on a battlefield and cyphered to hide it. Truth is we may say less contestable when it makes and breaks. People win not regardless of “the truth,” but because of it. That is operative truth, which makes and breaks even Scientific truth. Fingerspitzengefühl.

    Engagement with Chris “ReactinaryFuture” is not necessarily pointless though. It can be an exercise in rhetoric, conviction, testing out ideas, etc. I recommend an experimentalist approach to subjects. It can be entertaining

    Frank Reply:

    @ Eiriksson,

    He thinks Darwinism is a fiction to further divide power. Not kidding.

    Wagner Reply:

    Here’s a more charitable quotation of him from Jim’s blog:

    “Darwin was cheating. You can’t have teleology with Darwinian selection. That’s the giant dirty lie at the centre of it. There is no purpose. Its Whig history applied to nature.

    This whole “Darwin is reality and you may not question it.” is somewhat strange isn’t it? Like there is something else going on here.”

    I’ve never heard him make the argument you mention Frank but I appreciate the above skepticism.

    Frank Reply:

    Jim aptly replied to that by pointing out teleonomy, iirc.

    Yeah, I get the “those who fund ideas, control narrative; Darwin was propped up by whigs; therefore…” line of argument — even though I’m disinclined to do due diligence on primary sources to ascertain the accuracy of the claim.

    What ReactionaryFnargl implies (over at Spandrell’s place for example) is that Darwinism should have no bearing on political-economical theory, because it was a conspiracy of liberalism. Basically, the equivalent of flat-earthism for political theory.

    I don’t think I’m being uncharitable here. If Moldbug had used “the cathedral invented racism n’ sheeit” as a sufficient argument to convince me to drop my anti-racism, I’d laugh at it too. “Libruls done it” is not a good enough argument for me to throw away the foundations of my epistemology.

    Posted on May 4th, 2017 at 7:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    We could do without classical liberalism and individualism as well. These are not Western; if anything, they are Asiatic. A return to realism and a sense of purpose (a straight line, a goal) would do nicely.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2017 at 9:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nathan Cook Says:

    So what is malaria?

    [Reply]

    Frank Reply:

    Something like torsion dystonia would probably be a more accurate metaphor than sickle cell anemia.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2017 at 10:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    —» How do you get major companies like IBM, Starbucks, Nike, and GE to radically rethink their purpose? Keith Yamashita starts by asking companies to “lead into the unknown.” »

    [Reply]

    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    From https://shift.newco.co/the-change-whisperer-d10f42df2e74:
    > Starbucks completely rewrote its purpose statement, focused its business on its employees and its role in the community instead of the bottom line, and saw its stock grow by nearly 15X

    … so if NL is right and corporations are what will become future AI, is redirecting the purpose of the large companies toward their “role in the community” going to make for friendlier AI?

    [Reply]

    Uriel Fiori Reply:

    probably as friendly as we are to pandas (although we’re certainly less cute, so…)

    [Reply]

    Frank Reply:

    Becoming a community center-study hall is uniquely suited to Starbucks’ business model. Nobody goes there for their shitty coffees: it’s the expedient comfiness on the go: wifi, climate control, chairs, couches, desks, lights, electric outlets, people to gawk at when you need a break (most important part), cleanish restrooms. People usually start going there for comfiness, get hooked on shitty coffee due to caffeine, graduate to home brewed 3rd gen coffee, start finding Starbucks coffee intolerable, yet still tolerate it from time to time just for its study-hall-on-the-go qualities.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I was just looking at bean-to-cup machines. I need one. I cannot stand wasting time on making cup-by-cup anymore, which I have to do because I prefer to drink coffe as soon as it is made, i.e. I will not make many cups in one brew as every minute the coffee ages it tastes worse (details).

    I.e. I want a fresh cup with minimal effort, which means a bean-to-cup machine that takes a lot of beans and water and sits by my mouse and keyboard. I will start with a used one for provisional use, and later get something more industrial and/or IoTised (remote controlled).

    I also need a continuously-heated, i.e. self-heated cup because every dozen seconds my coffee gets noticeably cooler. Of course it gets cooler every nanosecond but that’s not noticeable. I will want for it to adjust it self to coffee and room temperature eventually.

    https://youtu.be/hjbZyXod3mc At some point I will have my own brand of beans. Luxury elite.

    Frank Reply:

    Best solution is Aeropress tbh. https://www.amazon.com/Aerobie-AeroPress-Coffee-Espresso-Filters/dp/B001HBCVX0/ref=sr_1_5?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1494077445&sr=1-5&keywords=aeropress

    Unmatched price, unmatched taste, unmatched ease of operation (cleaning takes 5 seconds). Takes all of 3 minutes to prepare a consistently awesome cup of coffee. Also avoid over-roasted beans. If it’s not light brown -> avoid. Starbucks sells only burnt, very burnt, extremely burnt, and pure ash beans (to be able to sell consistently shitty coffee, otherwise people would start noticing).

    Posted on May 4th, 2017 at 10:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    carring 3 copies, what then … makes you superman?

    [Reply]

    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    No, such an embryo would instantly die because their cells don’t believe in cell membranes (after all, keeping anything in or out is unjust) so cannot maintain homeostasis.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    Downs did not die, at leads not immidiately, but they have not just 3 copy of some gen but 3 copy chromosomes instead of two.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 5th, 2017 at 2:50 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    http://deletionpedia.org

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 5th, 2017 at 3:23 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    —»Deletionpedia creator Kasper Souren, a former frequent Wikipedia contributor who has since grown disillusioned with the site’s famously difficult editing culture, got the idea to start Deletionpedia while doing research for a cryptocurrency-centric wiki he ran called Coinwiki. He noticed a few of the smaller, non-Bitcoin currencies had Wikipedia articles that were flagged for deletion. Souren managed to copy some of the articles to his own wiki before they were removed, but there was one he was too slow to save. »

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 5th, 2017 at 3:41 am Reply | Quote
  • SIGMA Says:

    @G. Eiríksson thank you!

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    My pleasure. I got mentions of Deletionpedia, and Walker’s, in Gleick’s 2011 «The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood». —» The New York Times, Janet Maslin said [of it that it] is “so ambitious, illuminating and sexily theoretical that it will amount to aspirational reading for many of those who have the mettle to tackle it.” »
    I couldn’t disagree. ’tis a must-hear (audiobook). ‘ITis Theological.

    Walker’s » Information Letter 14 inspired Bill Gates, who described it as “brilliantly written and incredibly insightful”, to write his own Issues and Strategy “crisis letter” in which he said that “By talking about how a large company slows down, fails to invest enough and loses sight of what is important, and by using Microsoft as an example of how to do some things correctly he manages to touch on a lot of what’s right and wrong with Microsoft today.” »

    It caused him to switch Microsoft’s focus to the Internet.

    https://youtu.be/qSh2HswKn5Y

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 5th, 2017 at 6:45 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    —» I’ve noticed something odd over the last few months. Whenever I read something written between 1982 and 1988, or reflect upon those years, they seem increasingly distant, foreign, almost quaint. Quaint in the sense the Eisenhower years seemed by 1968, or the earnest hopes of the early sixties from the depths of the mid-seventies. Who would have imagined a few years ago that in the first months of 1991 the news would be filled with a war in which an alliance of the Soviet Union, Syria, Britain, France, Egypt, and the United States used high-tech weapons to flatten an Arab country, of the reorganisation of Europe around a united Germany exporting, among other things, rubble from the Berlin Wall and curios of the departing Red Army, and of a collapsing Soviet Union which even Russia (Russia!) was considering abandoning, careening into a crisis of unknowable magnitude and consequences, spurring sober observers to fear “a nuclear Beirut.”

    If the pace of change in the world seems breathtakingly fast and ever-accelerating, developments in our own software industry are even more rapid and revolutionary. Often it seems like the pressing concerns of six or twelve months ago are no more relevant to our current priorities than the Wars of the Spanish Succession or the controversy over N-rays. Compounded exponential growth is thrilling to experience and pays well, but it demands of those who would prosper by it the ability to make ever larger adaptations with less and less time to prepare. »—John Walker, Autodesk, Inc., 1991.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    something to write on fogging winter morning. you can be correct or not, really does no matter, correct or wrong is the same. follow that way, and best what you can get is become an expert, does not make a sense at all EXPERT IS ALWAYS LATE.

    I read Forrester in 1884 and know exactly what is going to happen for up to now. who, now, knows what is going to happen in next 40 years, quite good number of people and no one talking about it.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Maybe 1884 was the real 1984 and Orwell wrote entirely in Newspeak. *thunderclap*

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    I was on river another day and found deposit of few kgs of silver nuggets. Because my backpack was already loaded with other treasures I decided to collect samples and come back later to collect the whole thing. next day water rised and flashed my silver away.

    Posted on May 5th, 2017 at 10:23 am Reply | Quote
  • R. Says:

    We could do without classical liberalism and individualism as well. These are not Western; if anything, they are Asiatic. A return to realism and a sense of purpose (a straight line, a goal) would do nicely.
    [Reply]

    Individualism is… asiatic?

    O_o

    [Reply]

    s Reply:

    muh golden post-Peloponnesean war Athens

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 5th, 2017 at 2:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • george strong Says:

    Using anecdotes as proof is femail logic=Fail.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 5th, 2017 at 5:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tsaekasith Says:

    @Michael Rothblatt

    Populism won’t change anything, its a symptom of mass disillusionment. If a system based on manufacturing consent has utterly failed to manufacture consent its in dead. “”Progressives”” (why address them on their own terms?) aren’t the people who manufacture crises.

    Motivated Reasoners believe what they like, casual initiates believe whoever tells the best story and punctures holes in others, RF has a pretty compelling story that can puncture some holes. I think we all know just calling someone a mouthbreathing Machiavelli and a pseudo-intellectual will only attract disciples for them. Ideas which aren’t tested regularly die, regardless of the potential for persuasion in that testing, this was how Democracy died.

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    You don’t think they manufacture crises? Crises benefit them. So far every single crisis in the past 150 years has benefited them. I don’t see why it would be any different with current crises. Wait and see. For example, one would think that terrorism would sway the public opinion against them. One would, but they have already done damage control, and terrorism provides them with exactly the pretext necessery to further increase surveillance, further crack down upon the “hate” speech, and most importantly ban cash.

    I have engaged in the past, but he just ignores what criticism he cannot answer. What’s the point then?

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2017 at 7:22 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    @Henk et al

    Wasn’t that a coffee maker invented for space?

    Anyway, I’m watching Interstelllar, and it has this poem by Goethe (IBL) whose first part (‘Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.’) I had often seen. Then came the part I had not seen before. ‘Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night.’

    Anyone got a speculum on that? Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night?

    [Reply]

    Tsaekasith Reply:

    I’m pretty sure “Do not go gentle into that good night” was written by Dylan Thomas, not Goethe.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Right. But ur take on dat part?

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2017 at 2:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    —» posted by littleupchuck on December 27, 2009

    look……what most of the people who are replying to the article seem to be missing is what the aeropress is “for”. There are reasons for inventions. we all know that if you pour hot water over crushed coffee, you will get a cup of hot liquid that gives you energy and may or may not taste goo. THAT is what makes the aeropress DIFFERENT! First, for all my geeks out there, simple science and chemistry dictates that once you heat coffee grounds(emphasis put on grounds) with water over 180 degrees (+ or – a little) you start producing a dilute ACID. So, if your Cafe Bustelo is “just fine for me”….Suzyn…..then enjoy your coffe….and Rolaids. Second, as for the time taken. Yeah, maybe the first couple runs are time consuming but not once you get the hang of it (which if it takes more than a couple runs…..stick to instant coffe. your brain must be as refined as your palette). It is quite easy and you can keep the “concentrate” that it makes refrigerated for 2-3 weeks without any loss of flavor. Which brings me to my final point…FLAVOR. It can only be described as OH MY GOD smooth! The best part is by leaving it in its “concentrate” form, the mixture/dilution ratio can be customized for everyone in the family on demand! So, thats my review and if you dont like it or agree…..then you are………..wrong!

    [Reply]

    Frank Reply:

    Yeah, getting water temperature right is a big part of brewing decent coffee. I start heating 200cl of water until it starts boiling, then let it cool for exactly 3 minutes, and then pour it all, onto finely ground coffee inside the cylinder. Then stir the brew with a wooden spoon for no more than 50 seconds (lest you risk over-extraction), and proceed to press the piston, pouring the entirety of the liquid into a container that can take 200cl. If the beans were not burnt, this method allows me to actually sense distinct flavors (chocolaty, lemony, etc) of the particular bean. So I don’t recommend using cream or milk (sugar goes without saying. you shouldn’t ever put that poison in your body). Cream makes shitty coffee tolerable, but spoils good coffee.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2017 at 4:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Nietzsche intersecting with Marx, rare as a solar eclipse:

    What then is the meaning of these banquets? They represent ! What in Heaven’s name
    do they represent ? Rank ? no, money ! There is no rank now! We are all “individuals”! but money now stands for power, glory, pre-eminence, dignity, and influence; money at the present time acts as a greater or lesser moral prejudice for a man in proportion to the amount he may possess. Nobody wishes to hide it under a bushel or display it in heaps on a table: hence money must have some representative which can be put on the table so behold our banquets!
    […]
    The means of this desire for power are changed in our day, but the same volcano is
    still smouldering, impatience and intemperate love call for their victims, and what was once done “for the love of God” is now done for the love of money, i.e. for the love of that which at present affords us the highest feeling of power and a good conscience.
    (Dawn of Day)

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    We can never be too sure just how tightly Nietzsche’s aphorisms hung together, but the above selections are from 203 and 204 of Dawn of Day–tell me if you think 205’s placement in the sequence is synchronous:

    http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/daybreak/aphorism-205-quote_f8a4cf9d3.html

    Rorschach test!

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I don’t have the patience for Nietzsche anymore. Most things he says are inborn in me anyway.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 7th, 2017 at 6:10 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    EEEK MACRON WON.

    So..if you’re not French this isn’t your problem.

    Voting in wartime masturbation for the masses anyway.
    The violent decide fate in war.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 7th, 2017 at 7:10 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment