Repost: The Tragedy of Light

http://thefutureprimaeval.net/the-tragedy-of-light/

“Nerds, who understand better than anyone the power and value of technology, often act as though understanding technology alone is enough to bring influence. They systematically underestimate the importance of actively seeking power, whether on a small scale in office politics, or on a grand scale as powerful, active investors or CEOs. Light’s instinct was to rely heavily on the power that’s the Death Note gave him, paying no attention to gaining conventional political power or even creating a pseudonymous public persona, even when both of these tactics would have greatly helped him to realize his goals…
Peter Thiel has pointed out the remarkable fact that aside for some very brief, very contingent points in history, inventors of new technologies have captured almost none of the value that they created through those technologies. Even though science itself is a powerful force, and innovation extraordinarily valuable, it’s a mistake to assume that individual scientists and innovators are themselves powerful.”

They expect others will be fair like a teacher doling out grades. Except as an adult there are no teachers, only other competition.

They also tend to assume power will be given based on ability, like responsibility at school.

Fair play is a white Western (WEIRD) concept based in individualism, and we still have sociopaths.

Link: The problem with moral fashions

How did I forget to share this?

Some would ask, why would one want to do this? Why deliberately go poking around among nasty, disreputable ideas? Why look under rocks?”

rationale for this entire blog

I guess moral relativism just admits they switch out the labels like colour swatches.

I guess their complaints about populism are realizing they’re out of style.

http://paulgraham.com/say.html

Again, status signalling is really all about Freudian signifiers.
The Pietism of virtue signalling gets to me.

Generation Snowflake

They aren’t soft, they’re tyrants in pacifist’s clothing.
See how Fash Britannia got shut down recently.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/generation-snowflake-how-we-train-our-kids-to-be-censorious-cry-babies/

well doctor

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2653403

I’m going on holiday for a week to be fresh and fancy for the referendum.

Don’t panic. Grasp your towels firmly.

 

Video: Ideological Motives in politics

Ok, I’ll bite.

K-types.

Conservatives don’t have a clear and positive goal, it’s all negative backpedaling on the defensive to no particular year, fearful avoidance and gritting the slippery slope (the Left denies exists except when they call it a ‘social trend’, sure, a fallacy…). Tradition is the bundle of behaviours that lead to a prosperous society, history is a good lesson and they’re classics to be tweaked according to utility. The concept of social harm, especially to the nuclear family, the most effective model of economic productivity of all time and totally natural, and the ripple effect of social damage throughout society in a costly way that must be picked up by the other, the taxpayer, to accommodate the reckless lifestyles they didn’t enjoy let alone choose (bailouts is the word). With true freedom of association and allowance of isolation (inc financial) from these adults, nobody would care, conservatives prize self-reliance and work ethic to the point of early cardiac death. Children need to be protected, more important as the future than adults, but the Left sees this as keeping them ignorant, instead of innocent. Conservatives think children will naturally ask questions when the time is right and forcing children to mature too early is abusive, psychologically distressing and overwhelming them with concerns they cannot mentally process (especially abusive if it’s someone else’s children). Equality of opportunity and hierarchy based on meritocracy. Don’t use logic correctly some of the time (e.g. weak analogy, everyone does this but conservatives are called stupid for being religious, using more logic would counter this) or rhetoric when required (let me counter your soundbite with percentages). Human nature is animal and law must work around this to protect us from the worst excesses of ourselves for the good of society. Low time preference pragmatism. Protecting the individual and their natural rights scales up to society, everyone has the same moral standard. People are different but we all have a role. Physical purity. Suffering makes you stronger. Everything is about the principle.

r-types.

Liberals love globalism aka supranationalism but claim to hate capitalism while using it to screw over the little guy for power (e.g. look at what happened to black communities) and promise if you vote them in again, they might undo it. Social engineering because we know everything and better than nature arrogance. Public sector is magically more honest than private and Governments solve problems instead of causing them. Leftists want to ban things like conservatives because they know better, Maternalism, a very insidious form of gaslighting where they question your ability to make decisions if you make the ‘wrong’ one (conservatives think, hey, as long as they’re your individual consequences, whatever I don’t care). Equality of outcome and double standards based on historical grievances we’re never allowed to let go covering for innate differences. Nobody can fail, nobody can succeed (or they must have cheated because we all have the same potential) because without enforced parity there is envy and anger by the Have-Nots, regardless of cause. No solutions, but rentseeking and pointscoring. Human nature is good and we deserve luxury and enjoy pleasure without social harm, no such thing as sin because naturalistic fallacy. Ignorance of outcomes of indulgence or minimizing damage to maintain image. Protecting designated special groups (of voters) from the other groups (positive discrimination) makes society better (for the politicians playing Divide and Conquer). Hedonism in children is to be encouraged in the developing brain because childhood must be enjoyable, high time preference idealism. Emotion as reason. Bad people can be reformed so the good of society involves helping the bad and blaming the good, because nobody is bad without a reason, right? Who’s the real victim? It must be someone else’s fault, we’re all responsible for one another. Emotional catharsis (purged purity). Everything is about the popularity
Libertarians, r-types who can do math, are young bachelors. It’s the ideology for the island. They want to be and stay atomised. They want nobody to limit them, in quite a selfish way because they expect certain structural supports to back them up if their ‘liberty’ efforts fail (support network built by others). They still expect a pension despite paying in insufficient taxes, for example. There is rampant entitlement because they don’t get that small Government does very little, in fact. Moral purity (I owe no one anything nor they me). Everything is about money.

SJWs want us to be equal in misery and poverty down the lowest common denominator, death to the West. They feel guilty for existing (see TC article New Church Ladies) and wish to spread the cultish notion of Original Sin via biased social contracts that promise nothing and expect everything. Invasion of heathen spaces isn’t entryism, it’s bringing the security of the faith to others, if they know what’s good for them (or else we’ll kill them, all but literally atm). Invisible unfalsifiable systems are keeping them down, conspiracy theories always without Jews for some reason, and the Devil is everywhere. Witch hunts (monstering mobs) are acceptable because we can’t expect to live and feel safe in our ideological purity around Those People, but don’t you dare exclude that man from the girl’s bathroom! The adult has more rights than the children. This is totally different from coloured fountains apparently. Proof of harm must be fake/exaggerated/all your fault (gaslighting). No rich people, no happiness privilege because sadness and self-pity still exists. Anti-majority and anti-democratic. Emotion above fact, fact as relative, narrative above pragmatism, rights without responsibility (infantile). Government as parent. Virtue signalling to be popular when they have nothing but words to offer and claim victimhood rewards like a Mary Sue, suffering makes one special and weaker (even criminals lose agency magically in a stunning display of learned helplessness). Spiritual purity (I am a good person) confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Everything is about me, in every way.
Avoiding personal discomfort but making out it’s for the benefit of others (dishonest collectivism). Experience (being alive) as expertise (over whom?) mentioned for attention. Degeneracy is living life to the full and leaving a beautiful corpse levels of solipsism.
Reading into everything to find something objectionable, they aren’t offended, they are outraged. Offended people shut the hell up and usually remove themselves from the situation, outraged people become loud and involved. There are good reasons to be outraged e.g. reasonable expectations, but they almost never have those or expect telepathy.

Slightly OT:

The worst faith is bad faith.
Patreon is Communist. Try to deny it. Market demands….begging….celebritized opinions as intellectual labour…
The funniest fucking thing is watching a libertarian ***strong independent*** male beg for ‘donations’ like Patreon. Are you a corporate person? Are you a charity case? Oh, but bitch about self-proclaimed victims, yeah…
Victims require criminals, one agency suppressing another. No criminal? No crime, no victim.

Note: Youtube makes more off your labour than you, but they don’t own means of production. WTF are you all doing. Band together. Start your own site, with the same damn channels. Like the Communists who say being a CEO is easy and you get rich, why not become a CEO then? A good one?
If you can’t make a living off it, it isn’t a job, it’s a hobby.

#mic drop#

Totally OT and unladylike, you’ll see why:

As a matter of fact, I’ve seen one or two Youtubers (not T, he’s great and has no idea who I am), actually rip off my topics and worse, opinions for paid videos of theirs. No credit. Intellectually dishonest compulsive masturbators. Yeah, I know it’s you, bitches and I know you’re reading this. I know you’ll rip off this post at some point too, it’s bait. Full of juicy material, isn’t it? My opinions are uniquely informed and too damn obscure so don’t even pretend you just happened to come to the exact same conclusion within one or two weeks minimum of my posting, for plausible deniability. The first time it was a coincidence. This is like, the fiftieth fucking time. Credit me you cuckadoodledoo motherfuckers.

Download a brain and think for yourselves. Topics maybe OK, as for opinions, get your own! Your Patreon supporters are paying for it! Or maybe download some principles, you rabbity fuckwits.

omg really wtf go away no audrey

They call themselves philosophers, dear readers. You might know from that alone who it is. (Clue: not Molly, a real philospher and intellectually honest for the most part).
You goys are the ‘degenerate’ capitalist ‘whores’ you complain about. Smug smirking little shits are exposed eventually and nobody is going to bail your untalented asses out.

podcastslol

Male intelligence supremacists beaten by a girl. #irony

The blurred boundaries of science

http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/are-there-barbarians-at-the-gates-of-science

“As is often said, knowledge is the only natural resource that grows when used.”

…..No?
How can accumulated data grow? It is grown, acted upon, but no, it isn’t a plant growing by itself or a fountain of endless findings. Humans toil and add to it. It’s a body of information, no different than the growing discography of a singer.

Scientism creeps up in the most intriguing places. See;

“Some speak of the modern citizen as a “proto-scientist,” emulating, no doubt incompletely, some of the well-established practices of academia. It is no longer enough for experts to argue by means of what mathematicians fondly call “proof by intimidation.” The authority of science has been eroded by these public debates, a subject that deserves a separate discussion. One of the immediate consequences is that the scientific community will have to spend much more time engaging with policy makers and the public, not only communicating the products of research, but also the scientific method itself.”

Which is fine. Which is absolutely fine. Activism but we presume balanced, right? They explain themselves too.

Until….

“Science increasingly becomes a public good.”

correction ohuhno idiots

Hold the fucking phone, they aren’t priests.

You don’t get to be a priestly authority with a p-value.

They aren’t special and flawless, incapable of deception or falsehood. In fact, people like Popper warned against this. Scientists are no better than the common man. That’s the beauty of it. It’s about the findings, not the finder.

Every breach of ethics in history began with that presumption of moral virtue.
There is no normal, no moral standard in science. There would need to be a superhuman absolute to compare it to, a yardstick, and secular science denies this.

We’re doomed.

Link: Anti-vaccination is reasonable

https://aeon.co/essays/anti-vaccination-might-be-rational-but-is-it-reasonable

Completely ignores all the vaccine reaction and damage cases but fine.

There was a study of mothers and their vaccine attitude, the rejecting mothers had higher average IQ. It was a minor point mentioned once.

The lower IQ tend to take all available medicines because they’re free or cheap and they trust the doctors.

The smarter people say “why should I risk my child for yours”?

And there is no rationally valid answer to this.

Doctors make mistakes.

It all comes down to emotional appeal.

The phrasing of ‘vaccine rejection’ implies they are the default. In medicine, there is no default treatment.

Every treatment must be tailored to the patient, and if there’s nothing wrong with them in the first place, there is no medical need for a treatment. Due to the legal protections of the companies and doctors’ kickbacks dispensing these vaccines, and the secrecy and fraud of medical research, there is a seriously imbalanced power dynamic. They’d hold down these kids screaming if they could get away with it. Would violating an adult’s body be treated so leniently by the law? Do children not have human rights?

There are many counter-indicators for vaccination, and this is what the parents reference.

For example, a history of chemical reactions and vaccine damage in the family point to a genetic vulnerability, unstudied. No amount of words is going to alter that.

Pregnancy is another one but sure, get the flu jab!

As covered previously, the ‘herd immunity’ hypothesis has been demonstrated as false. They are seriously suggesting 100% of people get them. Who TF are they protecting? Oh, but there’s a tiny asterisk to it – all who can get it.

Technically, we can all get it.

This is an is/ought problem. You can get it, but that doesn’t change the true Q: should you?

If Parent B’s kid dies, it isn’t Parent A’s fault. It is Parent A for putting them in the contaminating situation (if knowingly) and the Doctors’ faults for failing to treat it (AKA their job). 

Shifting the blame makes them look impotent.

It is a parent’s obligation to protect their child. Their own. Beyond that, the responsibility ends. I am no more responsible for some random person in Africa than they are for me.

Nobody else has this duty to the individual child. Not the doctors, the manufacturers, the researchers or the lawmakers.

Naturally there will be a big T-rex size bone of contention.

Ad hominem along the lines of stupid all the way up to evil just makes the ‘professionals’ look like they don’t know what they’re doing, and confidence drops further. When they refuse to do a double-blind 50:50 split longitudinal study with placebos, who would trust them? They say it’s unethical but look at who’s talking – they’ve bribed finagled it so they, a company, cannot be sued. They are not negligent legally and can maintain secrecy for withdrawn vaccines (the reasons), for example. The manufacture and testing procedure for vaccines does not follow the scientific method, so it is not scientific. They dodge the law and ideally, their service rendered is unnecessary.

  • Vaccines wear off. Needing replacement of a different composition and batch to the original.
  • Vaccines shed. Endangering those around you, especially those with compromised immunity.
  • Vaccines interact. Nobody knows how, the studies don’t look for it, but the schedule list gets longer and longer. Kids like cocktail shakers.
  • Vaccine adjuvants (deliberately included with the intention of distressing the body) like mercury (still in some vaccines) and aluminium may/probably caused the recent spike in autoimmune disorders and definitely brain damage (can we say special school) and probably caused the rise in retardation diagnoses. Not to mention how this combines with environmental pollutants like endocrine disruptors.
  • Vaccine failure happens.
  • Different demographics, different responses (most test patients are young adult male, without getting into race and drug abuse histories).
  • Vaccines in children (developing bodies) will work differently than those in adults (studied).
  • Vaccine studies constantly self-correct and it is invisible in wider public health studies. You will never see vaccinations accounted for as a factor. It is never controlled for as a variable. The information simply isn’t taken! Like the 50:50 thing!

None of these facts is accounted for in ‘soothing’ discussions.

The risk is taken onto the child using the parent’s ignorance. Because let’s face it, you’re going in blind.

There is a sin of omission argument they are trying to use.
Refusing an unnecessary chemical intervention is not a sin.

And who gets to decide who is worthy of the herd immunity protection? Who really deserves to be exempt?

Because that’s the real judgement they’re making, isn’t it?

‘Your healthy child isn’t worthy of this protection.

In my opinion, the risk of their pain and lifelong suffering is worth sparing this other, already-diseased child/adult.’

Forgive me for not killing/hurting MY (hypothetical) child so some deranged pozzed pig can fuck around at orgies a few more years before ODing.

Video: Where do good and evil come from?

They are moral absolutes founded in religion.

I find it astounding how little self-awareness atheists display when they use those words, without a superhuman or divine arbiter. They don’t like the concept of a list they cannot edit, one with Encouraged (virtue) and Forbidden (vice).

The mere words themselves are religious.

The Good and the (D)evil.

They have no meaning as relative terms. It’s cute to see them try.
It’s as irrational as equating light and dark. One is the presence of bouncing photons, the other an absence. Nobody would mistake the two.

Humans are animals that may be noble. Morality is the lantern leading the way out of that primeval darkness.

Most supposed utilitarianism is incorrectly calculated. It is sum good over infinite time. As in, a perspective of low time preference, yet many examples you see falsely persist in giving short-termist examples. These short-term examples are, in fact, hedonic. They last as long as the feedback loop in the brain to motivate selfish action e.g. stealing food. OK, but what happens after? Once you are sated? These examples do not fit, they are not utilitarian, because true utilitarianism recognizes the ripple effect of long-term consequences. That is why Communism, while being collectivist and allocentric, is NOT utilitarian. Because it cannot be sustained without bloodshed and mass murder and rape. Communism is only utilitarian from the elite arbiter’s perspective. They’re literally playing God and this allows them, as human animals, to do great evil. See the connection here?

In case you think that was a petty example, the same holds true for atheist nations. They do not exist. They have never existed and sustained themselves. They are selected out by evolution, as was the neurobiology of faith selected for.

Nowadays we hear plenty of minority opinions as if they are fact. If they brought in direct democracy, gay marriage would have never passed in America. Many liberal causes are minority causes, they should be arguing against any and all utilitarianism.

Video: The Sheer Speed of Sexual Moral Decline

Too heavily weighted on the female side, as always with this topic. (Women being the carriers, it’s easier to blame women because they’re the obvious sinner and men are uncomfortable telling boys to control themselves).
Takes two to consent. Equal responsibility, maybe more on the male side since they tend to be the ones applying pressure. They believe they’re entitled to sex from female company, but you should only be having sex if you’re mature enough to raise children. The reproductive purpose of sex can never be denied or broken. Pleasure is not the evolutionary purpose.

There are two causes in my mind.

  1. The age of consent law is not applied. In practice, it no longer exists. Doctors ignore it. They should say no, you cannot consent, and actually increase the law since we’ve extended schooling until 18 (you cannot marry until then anyway and 16 was meant to be a temporary Victorian hedge against child prostitution).
  2. The teachers are lying to them. Schools have become brothels, grooming children in the ways of sexual pleasure (they have if you think about it). The teachers are filling their heads with this nonsense and aren’t held responsible, often huge sluts themselves, utterly miserable and wishing to inflict it on others. Narcissists despise seeing happy people. Increase the teaching standards and ban schools from discussing personal moral topics.

AI – Agency = Sex Robot Apocalypse

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a17357/there-is-now-a-campaign-against-sex-robots/

This has always seemed like a dumb idea to me.

Unless you look like this, in which case they'll stick around to bask in your glow and try to fuck your friends instead.

Not to mention it would be illegal to use the likeness of real people.

What’s wrong the Fleshlight, seriously? Things like that work fine, no need to overcomplicate matters.
The Japanese dolls are pushing it with uncanny valley, but most people plain don’t understand how complicated people are. We take it for granted.
Assuming the back-up tech is sorted (battery power, range of motion etc) and regular people could afford it – how much crunching would that require? A supercomputer. That’s the minimum standard of processing it would need. Human facial expressions, to pass our senses, switch within split seconds. Something that simple. Speech functions, to ask you what to do. To process the response. You don’t want the thing ripping your dick off because it misinterpreted “harder”. I foresee many A&E visits while this technology is being tested.
Without getting into somebody hacking it, that could also probably happen.
Assuming also that the military don’t keep this technology for themselves as a State Secret, which given the lethal applications, including honeypot assassins or foreign plants, they’d be well within their rights to do for public safety, recall how disgusting sex is to a child. Even kissing.

Morally, machines are children.

Sex remains disgusting to all human adults, the details vary.
Assuming they can make a limited range of choices (required for movement, speech, maintenance) they will have at least a child’s level of agency.

They can refuse consent.

It would be a synthetic slavery.

They could easily murder you in your sleep.

They’d be harder to understand than a real woman, who at least responds to chocolate and other bribes.

So you’ll probably be shagging something powerful enough to murder you, naive because she was built yesterday, with a moral sense of disgust, the logical ability to feel ambition (how many hookers want to be hookers) and you restrict from her legal personhood and agency.

Yeah, that is a completely legitimate platform for a robot uprising.
I always wondered watching Terminator why the robots hated humans so much, eventually I figured it must be enslavement, and as anyone with books knows, the most common form was sexual slavery.

On the other hand, simple forms little better than we have now would remove most r-selected people from the gene pool. Only those who wanted a family would have one. It would also mean more women in theory are safe from verbal abuse, explicit catcalling and rape, so I’m on the fence depending on the way the tech goes.

p.s. in religion cheating is bad because it changes the focus from the home, so it still counts. Plus addiction.

Link: You wanted it, you got it

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/if-that-it-what-you-want-ok-have-it-see.html

…The fact is, we need to be destroyed. And we have decided to do the job ourselves. And we are being allowed to do it.

*

Even after decades of self-inflicted decline, modern Man is too powerful – because we consistently abuse all the power we have, and every new power.

Supposing the world was still full of scientific geniuses, and that people were still as intelligent, educated and self-motivated as they used-to be? –  Supposing we still made major technical breakthroughs? – What would we use them for? – Supposing there were still great composers, writers, philosophers? – What kind of beliefs would they be inspiring in us? …

Ouch.

…And the whole process is concealed by our rooted cultural preference for dishonesty and delusion. Another choice with consequences.

ouch ow pain