I'm a philosopher & classical liberal. I like Ayn Rand, Karl Popper, William Godwin & Ludwig von Mises.
Post about politics here.
#12320 I agree with Elliot. What's your point?
#12327 I am Elliot. My point was reposting content so it's in a better place.
If someone posts a tweet, link or quote without any comment, I'd generally assume they think it's good.
Sunny and Doug on political coults
You can skip the first 15~20 minutes
Of course I mean "cults"
Context is she's mad I said (to someone else):
> Anti-zionism is mostly motivated by anti-semitism. It's full of double standards and lies. See e.g. http://fallibleliving.com/essays/rational-politics/89-a-short-history-of-israel and the writing of @CarolineGlick
If gender doesn’t matter, why does it matter which gender you identify as? Trans-activists are sexists who judge people by their gender, contrary to the prior activism that downplayed gender. Also note the parallels to race issues.
We need a true decentralized social network.
It is technically possible?
#12390 It's technically possible if you assume people have free internet access. That doesn't make it realistic to get a lot of people using it, or make it convenient and user friendly, etc.
Also to get started people will need to do something like download the app from a website (which is not decentralized and relies on some webhost and domain registrar, and maybe cloudflare or some other service to deal with DDOSes. Or they could put it on github or some other site, but then that site could remove it).
And who makes the app and decides how it works? Some small, central group. Yes it could be open source and possible to fork, but that doesn't solve the problems well.
Gab made a centralized (their own database server) tool to enable commenting on any webpage. So even if the page doesn't have comments, or censors the comments, you can comment with Gab's tool and then other users of Gab's tool can see your comment and reply (if they go to the same webpage, or if they look at a list of recent comments or do a search for comments). I already thought that was not user friendly and would have a hard time catching on, but then Mozilla and Google won't let Gab distribute the browser extension, so now Gab wants to fork their own browser, which I think is an awful idea and far more user unfriendly.
I think, currently, political improvement may be a more viable way to improve the situation than a technological solution.
A moderator of the True Objectivism subreddit defended deplatforming! I replied:
> The government has supported and subsidized these companies, and has used the power of law to harm and prevent competition. It's not anything close to a free market.
> And the companies have claimed to be free speech platforms, so if they aren't that is/was fraud (false advertising). And the are brazenly and actively lying about what their moderation policies are. They wouldn't have gotten as popular as they are without that fraud.
#12366 Anti-Globalism is the greatest anti-Semitism.
Poles have published the Red Cross report on the Nazi concentration camps that claims 271,301 people were killed, not 6 million.
i think Borderless is worse than Farmlands. she’s trying hard to be professional and entertaining in ways i don’t like, instead of just giving info. her talking seems more scripted for drama. too much of a staged feel to some scenes. i also don’t like the fake neutrality/objectivity.
i had an impression that Borderless had more makeup on Lauren and that kinda thing. so i just skimmed Farmlands by clicking at random places. first 5 clicks and lauren isn't even on screen. even when she's on screen, she's often at a distance, wearing a hat, and doing some activity *other than* talking straight into the camera. Borderless made way more effort to fit in close shots of Lauren and her face. that's another way it's catering more to the masses.
i’m not the target audience. it’s not meant to be for niche hardcore fans/supporters. it's meant for people with more moderate politics than me, and who are much less informed about the issues. it repeatedly took things i already knew, or at least would have expected if asked, and presented them as very surprising. and Lauren kept telling her audience what to be surprised by, or what is important, like they can't think for themselves and need to be guided. it's a little like having laugh cues for an audience too dumb to know which parts to laugh at.
at first i was thinking: even toned down, it's still too much for YouTube to put up with. they delayed processing of it then took it down. but then i thought: maybe YouTube finds it *more threatening* when it's milder, b/c it can better reach the masses.
btw, yes, i know, she was always an actress who tried to be entertaining in non-intellectual ways. and the vids with Pettibone talking about relationships were pretty awful (Pettibone is just a pretty face afaict, while Southern is actually a smart person when she wants to be). some favs that have intelligent content mixed in with the clickbait:
about normie youtube and the state of the world:
debunking shitty "science":
Also the writing in her book was fine.
same problem happens with other stuff like game of thrones fans. the hardcore fans were there first, and were the only reason a TV show happened, but they got screwed over when the TV show was not made for them.
the video game industry in general moved far away from what the best ppl, who were early adopters, want. to cater to bigger audience. the early adopters made it possible but then don’t get stuff made for them.
Tucker Carlson, who says Bernie and AOC are right re max interest caps (very similar to price controls), is not the hero who will save us.
solid article btw. has info about the history of usury. fits with what i read (in more detail, with more quotes and sources) in Rothbard's history of economic thought (which the article quotes).
it's a good point that before there was much commerce, a major type of loan was for desperate poor ppl who need it for food and shelter. in that case, Christianity advocates charity (or if you ask for your money back, at least don't ask for extra). but the christian idea of charity doesn't really have much to do with loans to businessmen.
today, most loans aren't to pay for a meal. even some payday loans are used on luxuries. and what about payday loans to let someone pay rent or eat? payday lenders are kind enough to offer and option to people that *no one* (not the payday lender nor any church nor friends nor relatives nor anyone else*) wanted to give charity to. that's helpful.
ppl r on the other side of this issue are ignorant or willfully blind.
Long Milo Yiannopoulos article trashing people involved in making and editing Lauren Southern's documentaries. They committed crimes (like fraud and stealing lots of money) and betrayed the right. They previously fucked with Tommy Robinson at length. Milo suggests that Lauren probably knew what was going on and was somehow OK with it, and also that she has been sleeping with a bunch of right wing guys to get career and script help (and that she doesn't make much of her own material) while also lying about tradcon stuff publicly. Suggests Lauren recently retired to try to dodge the backlash. Also talks about Ezra Levant and others handling stuff badly.
Total mess. I would *not* recommend reading the whole article. It's a bit repetitive, kinda disorganized, and very long. But I'd recommend reading/skimming a bit to get the idea if you were interested in some of these ppl.
link for tweet in previous post https://twitter.com/AAPSonline/status/1138186118061408256
#12751 Boo hiss.
being pro-life motivated the pinterest whistleblower. it helped him do something good
I like the pinterest whistleblower. I like his attitudes and what he says:
I wonder if any of it is coached by Veritas (or by anyone else), or how much he prepped, or whether he got the interview questions in advance.
 I don't like his goal of banning abortion, but I understand it some. I dislike the prochoice activists more. People on both sides are awful at science and reason. If you have no clue about science or reason, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.
I know that isn't the reason he'd endorse. He'd claim to know that life really does begin at conception or some religious nonsense along those lines.
But meanwhile the pro-choice activists know nothing about science and are totally sure of themselves, just like they are with everything else. And they shouldn't be. They are irrational fools pretending to be smart. They're dangerous. They are confident about abortion and evolution (where they happen to be right) and also about Marxism, white privilege, affirmative action, minimum wage, socialized medicine, immigration, global warming, paternalistic government, and so on (where they're wrong).
*The Coming Green Terror* blog post by George Reisman:
> A 4 minute masterclass on how to argue for peace without apology.
By Jeff Deist, Mises Institute President, and RTed by the Mises Twitter account too.
> Lew Rockwell on RT International 22 06 19
I thought the video was *awful*. He said don't put any sanctions on Iran, sanctions are basically a war act and we're starving people in Iran and elsewhere, which is evil of us. Just have peace talks, but don't use violence *or* sanctions. He assumes everyone will be reasonably if you negotiate? Really nasty stuff IMO, and kinda damns the Mises Institute (some of their work on econ is still good ofc and they do a good job of making ebooks available).
Anyone like the vid?
More deplatforming, just as the video itself reports on.
And they fucked with my newsletter. I just sent out the YT link to that video today and now the link won't work for my readers and the archives are screwed up. Ugh.
the article is about the publisher vs. platform distinction and section 230 law. maybe you've heard about that stuff. if not, check out the article.
that approach is evil. I think this was pointed out in a Mises Institute article or podcast, i forget but wanted to give some kinda credit. i recall them saying something kinda like:
*it should be possible to have a moderated forum (not neutral) without being sued for every single thing anyone posts there*. to make that impossible is huge fucking govt oppression
so i suggest what i’ve suggested before (which i have not see anyone else suggesting): go after Facebook for **fraud**. they keep lying about their products and false advertising to customers
we don’t need new laws and more govt power, we need to enforce the most basic laws that already exist and would exist even under minarchy. start there and see how effective classical liberalism actually is!
#12875 Oh maybe I heard the publisher vs. platform criticism from Rucka. I definitely watched this video:
Maybe I saw a Mises article previously, but maybe not, can't remember.
I don't think I was paying much attention to the idea before hearing Rucka flame it. I didn't care about it much cuz I liked my fraud point more anyway. And the 230 stuff is just short term political details which I try to avoid; it's awful though.
more on #12875
Alan Forrester asked me:
> What fraud has Facebook committed?
they have a terms of service. their actual actions do not follow it.
they advertise what to expect on FB, what kinda platform it is. they say it’s basically open, and you won’t be banned, except for extreme cases like drug dealers using it to sell product
they advertised it as offering privacy and working privacy controls. recently their lawyers said basically that no one has any expectation of privacy on FB.
they said they had adequate and reasonable security safeguards so your data would not be stolen. that was a lie.
they said, in various forms, that they don’t sell your data to advertisers, then they did.
overall, they lied that they were a neutral town square. they aren’t. if they had admitted from the start that they were a leftist site which moderates conservatives, then they would have fewer users and more conservative alternatives would exist.
they are still lying today. they don't want anyone to know what their real policies are for censoring stuff and deplatforming people or groups. they are actively relying on tricking (defrauding) their users. they are doing the same kind of shit – and publicly lying about it – that Veritas just exposed Pinterest and Google for.
BTW I think FB has also committed fraud against their advertisers. I remember reading about an issue, a while ago, where they were counting video views or view duration in an unreasonable way so they could mislead advertisers about how much exposure they got for their money.
Here's an article which mentions an issue:
Basically says they were charging advertisers for a video view if a video *autoplayed* (probably muted) for 3 seconds before the user scrolled it off the screen.
They have lots of shady crap regarding how they count ad views and even today, years after they got in bad press over this, I failed to find any good info about how it works (from FB or a third party) after searching a bit. I didn't find like a basic guide to what you need to know to advertise on FB and know what you're actually buying.
Apple trying to do deplatforming:
#12897 Apple also blocks some channels on Telegram
reddit quarantined r/the_donald
they also suspended Veritas' reddit account
#12879 Here's a good example of the ongoing fraud these companies do:
> We've had a lot of questions today...clarifying, we apply our policies fairly and without political bias. All creators are held to the same standard.
YouTube is lying to the public about their product. Factually, they do not apply their policies fairly and without political bias and whole all creators to the same standard.
I think YT's tweet is about their deplatforming of the Veritas video in which a Google insider exposes Google's bias (including YouTube, which is owned by Google). But they aren't honest enough to state what issue they are commenting on.
A lot of people know YouTube is lying. The ratio on that tweet is 24k replies to 860 RTs. When a tweet is positively received, it gets more RTs than comments. There are no downvotes, so comments are the only way to respond negatively.
I skimmed through a few replies and the main theme I saw was calling YouTube liars. Also there are comments about the bad comments-to-RTs ratio itself. (There's also the comments to likes ratio, which is also awful.) Lots of comments have meme pics and animated GIFs. Also people call YouTube a joke or wonder if it's a parody account. But implying YouTube is lying is the most common.
The Mises Institute has some awful affiliations.
I've been reading Noble Vision, which is a novel with heavy Ayn Rand/Objectivist style themes in where the hero is a doctor dealing with a socialist medical bureaucracy in the US.
I came across this xoxo thread.
I think the purpose of the post was more to complain about the guy's personal situation with his wife, but it provides an interesting glimpse into what doctors have to deal with nowadays. Some excerpts:
>Date: June 28th, 2019 12:14 PM
>Author: Thunder Collins
>My wife had a meeting with her boss and the program head to discuss her contract. >She tells the top guy that her boss (an incompetent black woman) is running a disorganized and chaotic program that is so poorly run and breaking so many rules that it is putting her at an unacceptable risk to her medical license and she won’t sign a new contract. She also complains that the black woman is trying to change the terms of their agreement in terms of accounting for her work hours and the number of patients she has to see. The black woman repeatedly chimps out and acts like an angry black woman who is being told that her benefits were being cut off. In a pause in the conversation, the top guy says “It looks like this relationship is over and you have made up you are going to leave.” Today is her last day.
>Date: June 28th, 2019 12:23 PM
>[The boss] is real bad. The woman has no medical background and she has been trying to dictate what patients get diagnosed and prescribed and breaking a number of laws. Can’t fire her tho, for obvious reasons,
Dems are purely evil radical hard left communists, would destroy America and leave us socialized and starving. Even NYTimes' token conservatives like Bret Stephens are starting to see the extent of the radicalism:
>Eliminating private health insurance, an industry that employs more than 500,000 workers and insures 150 million? Elizabeth Warren, Bill de Blasio, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris support it (though the California senator later recanted the position). Since Democrats are already committed to destroying the coal industry and seem inclined to turn Silicon Valley into a regulated utility, it’s worth asking: Just how much of the private economy are they even willing to keep?
>And then there are the costs that Democrats want to impose on the country. Warren, for instance, favors universal child care (estimated cost, $70 billion a year), Medicare-For-All ($2.8 trillion to $3.2 trillion annually), student-debt cancellation and universal free college ($125 billion annually), and a comprehensive climate action plan ($2 trillion, including $100 billion in aid to poor countries), along with a raft of smaller giveaways, like debt relief for Puerto Rico.
>As Everett Dirksen might have said: A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money. Someone will have to pay for all this, and it won’t just be the very rich making between seven and 10 figures a year. It will be you.
I didn't know the gun control situation in the US was so awful a few decades ago! Texas and Alaska were NO ISSUE states!?
Nonsense pretending to be profound?
> If the US really wants to decrease the chances of a nuclear-armed Iran, it will have to adopt a less hostile policy.
This Mises article is basically saying the US is *causing* Iran to develop nukes by its harsh behavior. But it doesn't advise Iran to stop its hostile policy towards the US. It doesn't tell Iran that its chants of *death to America* only incentivize the US to impose more sanctions and political pressure. The article seems unbalanced and asymmetrical in a really fucking disturbing way. Fucking libertarians.
I commented on the new House of Sunny podcast ep:
> I think the fraud angle is important. We don't need new regulations. We need to enforce the most basic existing laws that would exist even in a minarchy. No force including no fraud. FB, YT, etc, are constantly lying, today (not just fraud to grow big initially, but ongoing right now), in official marketing and even in government hearings. They lie about what their ToS means, what their moderation policies are, under what circumstances then ban accounts, how their appeals processes work, whether their algorithms have certain features (like biased human manual intervention), and whether they are offering a neutral platform. This is false advertising and breach of contract. Start there, start with the stuff ought to be uncontroversially wrong from a classical liberal or libertarian viewpoint. There's no need to try to make it illegal to have a moderated forum, in general, if you don't want to be liable for everything posted there. You should just have to advertise truthfully about what kind of forum it is (e.g. an Objectivist only forum should be allowed to exist without getting sued for what its users say, but should not be allowed to advertise as an open platform, that'd be fraud). It's just like the issue with illegal immigration where we already have plenty of laws, we just need to enforce them.
Forget equal pay, forget equality, fuck equality, equality is stupid, it was never about equality. Merit pay when women are better, equal pay when men are better, because the point is to favor women as much as possible.
And define merit based not on winning or production but on artistic performance – in an industry where winning or production are the normal goals.
John Gruber is a sexist. And he is, sadly, representative of far too many leftists.
Links to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-48885846
Anyone have any criticisms of DD's position?
Another Wikipedia bias example:
old quote on "Northern conservatism" from 1897
>It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.
>> No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.
Conservatives say that human life begins at conception. A baby has a soul before its even born. What, then, is the *principled* excuse for not letting a baby, even a fetus, vote?
> The United States, Individual Rights, And Slavery
Nice mini article.
Former ICE Director Thomas Homan stood up to left-wing character attacks
> Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change
> The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.
> In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.
His new YouTube channel current has 11k subs. It's a *gamer* channel, not politics.
Deplatforming is constantly happening to people, and many of them are pretty dependent on a single platform. They lose huge audiences overnight.
Some Google censorship info (by left-biased wikipedia):
Some info on censorship by Facebook. The page also has other criticisms of Facebook:
Good article. The left is so bad at picking people in jail to defend. They picked a *drug Kingpin* involved with 23+ murders. If you picked prisoners to say "This man should be released" at *random* you'd do a lot better.
> This is the left's famous two-step on criminal punishment:
> 1. Oppose the death penalty on the grounds that "life in prison without possibility of parole" is just as good;
>2. Wait a few years for all the witnesses to die or move away, and then demand the convict's release on the basis of absolutely no information about his crime.
The left likes to talk about nonviolent drug crimes while not giving any info about a person's actual crimes.
Summary: Lovel Canal was a fraud. The chemical company was by far the most responsible and moral actor in what happened. The school board only got the property by threatening to take it with eminent domain, and the chemical company *repeatedly* warned them and tried to stop them from getting people hurt. The school board excavated tons of dirt that the chemicals were buried in, didn't tell their architect about the chemicals, built sewers, and more. Also the city and army dumped waste in the canal and that may not have been handled responsibly, whereas the chemical company sealed their waste. The hurt citizens with a lawsuit didn't do the most basic research to see if the school board might be at fault, e.g. but not bothering to check public records that the reporter accessed.
The chemical company, while highly responsible in how it deals with chemicals, did not have good lawyers. A popular book lied about what happened and turned the public against the chemical company. The reporter talked to the lawyer who advised not to sue for libel. The lawyer's reasoning was not to give the book free publicity. But once it was popular, he was just preventing the company from defending itself to the public. The reporter argued with the lawyer briefly and the lawyer actually conceded that maybe he should reconsider. It's terrible how carelessly some important decisions get made – but (for the chemical company, though not the school board) it was just the ones about publicity and lawyers, not about chemicals.
(This is an unmoderated discussion forum. Discussion info.)