curi blog comments Explanations for the curious en-us Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:36:01 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion

> Exclusive Excerpt from Ann Coulter’s ‘Resistance is Futile!’ — Trump Is Hitler Times Infinity]]>
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:19:33 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> We were told that people joined ISIS out of “alienation” or just because they are poor, but when we actually got to interview ISIS members when they were arrested or detained in Iraq and Syria, what media discovered was that these are not poor people suffering discrimination. These are often middle-class and college-educated, sometimes converts to Islamist extremism, who relished the idea of selling slaves and murdering people. They saw traveling to Iraq and Syria to be a kind of vacation where they would get a nice house, emptied of its inhabitants and confiscated from minorities, and they would get slaves and relax.]]>
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:01:50 +0000
Bye IDW curi Open Discussion Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:47:12 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:30:19 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:19:11 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
> In reading histories of the Third Reich I was always struck by how quickly — in just a matter of months — Germany went from being a free, democratic state to an authoritarian dictatorship, right under everyone’s noses in 1933. I always marveled at how fast and easy it was to destroy freedom. I don’t marvel any more. It is happening to us right now, and most people neither notice nor care. The authoritarian Left is stamping out all dissenting voices. It will soon be even worse: people who don’t hold the accepted opinions will not be able to hold jobs, have bank accounts, buy from various outlets, etc. Think this is hysterical and will never happen here? Watch.

I think Omnipotent Government by Mises explains what happened in Germany better and it wasn't an overnight thing, but still there is tons of cause for concern (and the current US problems have been buildings for decades)]]>
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:05:41 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> GoFundMe cancels Robert Spencer’s withdrawal of funds, refunds donations, without explanation

He tried to use GoFundMe to fund some videos after Patreon dumped him and blamed Mastercard.]]>
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:04:07 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:40:51 +0000 FF Open Discussion Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:08:44 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:32:53 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Marxism/Socialism, A Sociopathic Philosophy Conceived In Gross Error And Ignorance, Culminating In Economic Chaos, Enslavement, Terror, And Mass Murder: A Contribution To Its Death

Amazon description looks amazing. Great mix of marketing and actually explaining ideas, not just fluff.]]>
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:04:00 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:22:42 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion

Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:24:47 +0000
curi Open Discussion
David Deutsch fan:

> A disclaimer: this piece is a poor paraphrase of Deutsch's argument. If it weren't protected by copyright, I would just cut-and-paste the entirety of chapter 7 of TFOR here and leave it at that. I asked Deutsch once to put Chapter 7 on the web as a service to humanity but he declined. I cannot hope to reproduce the clarity and completeness of Deutch's argument (which is really Popper's argument), though I'll certainly give it my best shot.

But he doesn't get epistemology:

> R: That's right, it can't. Science can't *disprove* the existence of *anything*. What science can do is to show, in a philosophically justifiable way, that certain things are *extremely unlikely*.

But just a few lines earlier he'd quoted just one paragraph from DD as fair use, and included a bolded line in it:

> **No valid form of reasoning can logically rule out such possibilities, or even prove them unlikely** [emphasis added]

Then he turns around and says what science can do is show that things are unlikely. :(]]>
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:54:14 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:37:17 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:34:42 +0000 Anonymous Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology

I found one question from Curi about the position of Objectivists on fallibility not being well defined:]]>
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:07:43 +0000
guilherme Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology
I found one of Curi's questions about Objectivists not being very well defined:]]>
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:03:55 +0000
guilherme Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology
>understanding of rationality as being about error correction

In Galt's speech Rand argues the problem with following an authority using fallibilism and error correction.

>Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.

Though I don't know the importance that that argument has in the Objectivist epystemology.]]>
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 07:59:20 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Guy working in White House got fired cuz he spoke at an event (Mencken club) that Richard Spencer has spoken at.

I googled a past speaker list and it seemed like quite a mix of people, including Austrian economists and VDare type people, and people with fancy degrees

So calling it white nationalist seems like a lie. They let white nationalists but that doesn't seem like the theme.

SPLC has framed it as a white nationalist event for quite some time of course

>When it formed six years ago, the founders of the H.L. Mencken Club envisioned a simple forum for the “intellectual right” to be filled with “young thinkers and activists” ready to tackle the tough issues confronting the country. In reality, though, the club was a gathering place for the country’s most prominent white nationalists.

Even SPLC kinda admits that white nationalism isn't the theme and that their issue is that white nationalist speakers are among those who can speak

>Speakers at this year’s conference, which is being held at “a hotel near Baltimore-Washington International Airport,” according to the website, include John Derbyshire, the white nationalist fired from the National Review for writing a piece for a separate publication suggesting that white and Asian parents should warn their children that black people pose a threat to their safety. He plans to give a speech with the puzzlingly bland title, “Politics and Intelligence.”

I laughed at "puzzlingly bland". SPLC wants a better HATE title to put in its fundraising pitches]]>
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 01:00:53 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:23:36 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> A white woman was hospitalized following an altercation where she called a group of people the N-word on the X2 Metrobus.

> Video emerged on Twitter showing the woman getting into an argument with another passenger. As the white woman begins walking off the bus near 2nd and H streets in Northeast D.C., she calls the other passenger the N-word.

> The video shows the woman exiting the bus before cutting to a clip where she is on the ground, bloodied up.

one of the reaction tweets:

>She tried to call a bus full of niggas, niggers and had the nerve to do it on the X2 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 lord stupidity is a illness]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 18:43:29 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 19 Aug 2018 18:34:13 +0000 curi Sam Harris vs. Capitalism
but the poor people could work for each other, and have their own economy.

and anyway if i was so rich i didn't care for more wealth, i'd be rich enough to feed billions of people (and the expense would matter less to me than $20 does today). if no one else fed them and gave them basic stuff (someone would), i'd do it. besides, there are incentives to do it. feeding a billion people would get me a lot more readers for my blog posts...]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 18:21:21 +0000
guilherme Sam Harris vs. Capitalism
I know. some people say "what if machines steal all the jobs? How are we going to get money?", But why do they want money for? If machines already produce everything there's no need for money.]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 17:15:27 +0000
curi Open Discussion

The stuff LT is talking about has little to do with TCS. It's just her views on how to deal with stuff.

> I am curious on what the perspective of someone who follows the "Take Children Seriously" perspective like @DavidDeutschOxf would think about the YouTube Channel idea. He would certainly be exposed to some mean spirited criticism at best, hateful trolling at worst.

The TCS perspective on this is: it's the kid's choice. Give the best advice you can, to the extent he wants the advice, and let him make his own decision. And then help your kid with whatever his decision is, whether you agree or not. TCS doesn't specifically take a stance on whether it's good or bad to have a YT channel, but is broadly positive about people doing activities in life, and broadly optimistic about the ability of young people to do worthwhile things or acquire skills.

I personally think YT channels are good but that writing is more important than video as a format for serious thinking/learning/discussion. But that isn't a TCS position. TCS is a specific thing that focuses on issues like how to treat your kid and how learning works, not on what to do with one's life.

Also, the concern:

> He would certainly be exposed to some mean spirited criticism at best, hateful trolling at worst.

Is simply not a concern of TCS. TCS does not say to avoid mean spirited criticism or hateful trolling. And if it's implicitly suggesting sheltering his kid from such things due to his young age, then TCS's response to that would be: no. (Though parents are welcome to give wanted, non-pressuring advice about what sort of things to avoid and why. Personally I'd basically disagree and say it's good to learn to take in information, including about how flawed many people are, without being upset, evaluating ideas as if truth were a popularity contest, or thinking that *unargued* insults have any bearing on who you are. I think waiting would only make sense if there was a clear, specific plan in progress, or starting now, to learn some skills that will help the YT channel project succeed better. But I don't think one should just vaguely assume that waiting until one is older will somehow mean one knows how to do things he hasn't been doing.)

PS if you want to know about TCS you should ask at the FI list or the curiosity forum. They are the only active TCS discussion places and they are where everyone who cares about TCS is available to answer questions.]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 14:19:07 +0000
Anonymous Sam Harris vs. Capitalism Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:34:39 +0000 curi Sam Harris vs. Capitalism
They don't understand scarcity. There's always more to do to better satisfy people's wants. If robotics can satisfy some wants with less human labor, great, humans can labor more to satisfy some other wants instead and then be better off overall (they get the same stuff as before, via robot, plus new things). And, besides, if there somehow wasn't scarcity anymore, there'd be plenty for everyone (by definition), so what would one need a job for?

Whenever some currently high-priority wants are addressed, it opens up the pursuit of currently lower priority wants. People would like far more stuff than they can currently get. And, again, if there was so much that people stopped wanting more stuff and preferred to spend their time reading books or socializing or whatever, then what would be the harm of being unemployed? Unemployment is scary only when you have less than you want (which means there is still work to be done that is not being done by robots).]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:23:14 +0000
guilherme Sam Harris vs. Capitalism
It seems to me that people that expect that to happen are showing some kind of bias. Because why would one be optimistic about our ability to create technology but pessimistic about our ability to create new jobs?]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:17:34 +0000
guilherme Sam Harris vs. Capitalism
Spending money means acquiring wealth not spreading it.]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:07:49 +0000
guilherme Sam Harris vs. Capitalism
Is it not his argument that the government was the structure supposed to prevent poor use of the funds by the rich? Now he wants to create another structure to prevent the same thing from the government.
He should be thinking of structures that allow error correction instead of structures that prevent errors.]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:00:27 +0000
curi Sam Harris vs. Capitalism

> And I say this as someone who considers himself, in large part, a “libertarian”

In what sense is a person who wants to take trillions of dollars by force from the rich a "libertarian"? He's a particularly extreme statist.]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:36:06 +0000
From the follow up article guilherme Sam Harris vs. Capitalism
> The result was Objectivism—a view that makes a religious fetish of selfishness and disposes of altruism and compassion as character flaws. If nothing else, this approach to ethics was a triumph of marketing, as Objectivism is basically autism rebranded.

>And I say this as someone who considers himself, in large part, a “libertarian”—and who has, therefore, embraced more or less everything that was serviceable in Rand’s politics. The problem with pure libertarianism, however, has long been obvious: We are not ready for it. Judging from my recent correspondence, I feel this more strongly than ever. There is simply no question that an obsession with limited government produces impressive failures of wisdom and compassion in otherwise intelligent people.

He provides no arguments and says things like "has long been obvious" and "There is simply no question". Those are bad ways to deal with ideas.]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:33:40 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:42:57 +0000 Anonymous Sam Harris vs. Capitalism
It's not about kicking people's asses or beating others in some sort of competition, though. ET explained flaws in Harris's ideas. That's an amazing *gift*, not an ass-kicking.]]>
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:27:31 +0000
FF Sam Harris vs. Capitalism Sun, 19 Aug 2018 06:53:54 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Sat, 18 Aug 2018 23:39:37 +0000 Anonymous Criticism of Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape]]>
Sat, 18 Aug 2018 21:43:23 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Sam Harris is very bad.]]>
Sat, 18 Aug 2018 20:52:35 +0000
ff Open Discussion
What do I say to this guy?]]>
Sat, 18 Aug 2018 20:49:23 +0000
curi Open Discussion

> Is well being really dependent on the subjects values?

Yes. E.g. some people like steak and some dislike it, so having steak in the fridge provides different amounts of well being to them.

Moral truths deal with context. They don't say "Always eat steak regardless of your preferences, allergies or situation." E.g. my understanding of moral truth says, broadly, approximately, to eat foods that you like and which don't harm you (which foods those are depends on the person and their current situation, and there are many other issues like affordability). And the amount to eat depends on your weight, metabolism, how much you ate recently, and other more; morality does not say that everyone should eat 2000 calories a day, it says that "What should a person eat in X situation?" and "What should a person eat in Y situation?" often have different answers.

The answers for what to eat in different situations aren't independent either. Moral knowledge often applies to multiple contexts, but rarely all contexts. There are tips for how to eat that are helpful for many situations. How widely an idea applies is what David Deutsch calls its "reach". Ideas with more reach are less parochial, and are generally more interesting and valuable – but having some knowledge that's very specific to your own situation is good too.]]>
Sat, 18 Aug 2018 20:43:38 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> These Screenshots Show How Google Shadowbans Conservative And Pro-Trump Content

Article talks about trying to promote his video, then trying to find out why Google was blocking it. Turns out a Trump quote – that the NYT had published – scrolled along the bottom of the TV interview. jfc. Later he got shadowbanned on YouTube by SPLC censors. Also if you search for Cavuto you only find anti-Trump stuff, even though he makes stuff for both sides:

> Keep in mind, Cavuto is an endangered species. He is one of the last fair and balanced journalists on television. He giveth and he taketh away. But you will have to scroll deep into YouTube to find anything positive about Trump from Cavuto. Google hides those videos.

> You can go 300 videos deep and still not find the interview with me that has the second-most views of any Cavuto video (see above). You will pass videos with 22 views and many that are nine years old. I have been censored out of the Cavuto stream.

Google apparently auto-generates hidden channels based on ppl like Hannity or Tucker, puts whatever videos they want on them by biased algorithm or biased human selection, and then highly prioritizes those videos in search results.

> Even if I type in the exact, complicated title of this particular YouTube video, they offer me something else.

Scary. Read the whole article.

> A recent report claims that a Chicago pastor saw his podcast drop from the top 25 in iTunes to less than 200 only 24 hours after posting a Facebook message “to pray for Donald Trump.”


> One of the sources I interviewed for this article found his business shadow-banned on Facebook after he expressed pro-Trump sentiments. He went through three businesses and thousands of dollars before finally realizing what was happening. He has since changed his online identity, IP address, and bank accounts, and after months of scrubbing he is up and running again. But of course, this time he will keep his mouth shut.


> To prepare for the segment, I quickly googled “media bias.” What came up was a long list of articles telling me that there was no such thing as media bias. A Google-promoted chart ranked CNN somewhere in the middle, between liberal and conservative.

lying scumbags.

> the chart that Google promotes says CBS tacks slightly to the right


> Even as I research and write this article I’ve been told that Google has now agreed to work with communist censors in China. As long as the Chinese stay on the far left, they should get along fine.



BTW, me and my FI colleagues have had our own bad experience trying to run twitter ads promoting content that SJWs and Marxists don't like.]]>
Sat, 18 Aug 2018 18:11:28 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Excerpt From: Ludwig von Mises. “Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War.” iBooks.]]>
Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:19:30 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
>damn i want this for office work! my wife would beat me if i bought another..]]>
Sat, 18 Aug 2018 08:59:58 +0000
curi Open Discussion Fri, 17 Aug 2018 23:06:56 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 17 Aug 2018 22:49:41 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
He seems to have mixed Plato and Aristotle to a point of disbelief. He seems smart enough to not do this out of a lack of access to text or knowledge about either philospher. I've only read *The Nicomachean Ethics*, but I've often heard that it is possible to misinterpret Plato as pro-science and Aristotle as a hippie. This raises the question, how far is it possible to misinterpret them while (assumingly) still being honest?]]>
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 22:44:00 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
My comments on the ep, also posted to FB at

- Talking about *access* to real knowledge doesn’t address or acknowledge the issue of *how to resolve disagreements* between ideas.

- In the big picture, the “gap” is always *infinite*. No matter how far you get – 500, 5000, 5 million – there’s always infinity more to go. Potential improvement is unbounded, and finite progress can never get close to or approach the end of an infinite road (on a scale from 0 to infinity, any finite number is always near the beginning). So we must learn to live in a state of ongoing progress (the only alternative is a static life, which is unsustainable – only ongoing progress is sustainable in the long run because new problems are inevitable). See David Deutsch’s book *The Beginning of Infinity*, which is named for this issue (and makes the point about sustainability).

- Keeping in mind positives in an appropriate, objective way – and feeling appropriately positive – is something that one should *automate*. Like most skills, one should put conscious attention into it at first while learning it, and should go through organized the steps and practice it. But after a while it should become second nature and rarely need much conscious attention or reminders, which allows moving on to focus more attention on other things.]]>
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 22:42:06 +0000
curi Open Discussion Fri, 17 Aug 2018 21:52:38 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion

*"According to George Johnson, LaRouche sees history as a battle between Platonists, who believe in absolute truth, and Aristotelians, who rely on empirical data. Johnson characterizes LaRouche's views as follows: the Platonists include figures such as Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, Leonardo da Vinci, and Leibniz. He believes that many of the world's ills result from the dominance of Aristotelianism as embraced by the empirical philosophers (such as Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume), leading to a culture that favors the empirical over the metaphysical, embraces moral relativism, and seeks to keep the general population uninformed. Industry, technology, and classical music should be used to enlighten the world, LaRouche argues, whereas the Aristotelians use psychotherapy, drugs, rock music, jazz, environmentalism, and quantum theory to bring about a new dark age in which the world will be ruled by the oligarchs. Left and right are false distinctions for LaRouche; what matters is the Platonic versus Aristotelian outlook, a position that has led him to form relationships with groups as disparate as farmers, nuclear engineers, Black Muslims, Teamsters, and pro-life advocates."*

Equating Aristotle with evil? How can someone come to this errenous conclusion?

Fri, 17 Aug 2018 21:47:31 +0000
curi Open Discussion

> It's 11 hours long :O

> How about a 15-30 min for the start, most important points?

If anyone wants to give this guy a TL;DR (or TL;DW, I guess), that'd be great.]]>
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 16:45:10 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:17:09 +0000 PAS Open Discussion
#10669 & #10670 - OK on the concept, no on the specific TJ's dinner (mushrooms = deal killer). I like lots of TJ's frozen stuff but haven't found any of their refrigerated stuff I like yet. Haven't tried Whole Foods (they're currently inconvenient to my location).]]>
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:12:56 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:09:02 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:06:19 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:55:52 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
FYI you can now buy lots of things like this at grocery stores like Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. I've tried and enjoyed a bunch from TJs.]]>
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:51:49 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Judging by the pictures, Freshly meals look less tasty than Gobble to me. But the convenience factor sounds great. I'll try them sometime. Thanks.

Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:48:44 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:45:04 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:32:18 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:12:29 +0000 Anonymous Frozen Comments]]>
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:20:26 +0000
Meal Services I've Tried PAS Open Discussion
Gobble - Requires less preparation than Hello Fresh but still significant. 15 minute estimate is way too low. Packing & shipping is fine. Recipes can leave out important steps assuming you know to do them (like cut ends off peppers), and/or ingredients can be unclear (2 unlabeled pouches of sauce-type stuff...what is what?).

Both of the above call for the use of more oil than I'm used to or like, resulting in food being too greasy for my taste if you follow the recipes exactly.

Also both of the above suffer from veggie overload: The tendency to have too high a vegetable to meat ratio, and to use uncooked vegetables (ex: salads, or sides that are uncooked). This is also often combined with icky sauces like vinegar based stuff (hate vinegar). Some people like that kinda stuff but I do not and it disqualifies at least half the meals in each service. Some weeks I can't even find one or two meals where I'd eat most or all of it.

Freshly - Have only had one week from them so far but I really like it! The only prep you do is microwave. They're all pre-cooked. It's kinda like a frozen dinner without the freezing, which permits a little more variety in ingredients than you find in frozen dinners. Each meal is in a standard sized tray so packaging is standard (and tight). Everything stays in position and stays cold. Ships ground to my location BUT it's close, so not a problem. Benefits are that everyone in a family can pick something different with no extra prep, prep overall is extremely short and predictable. And NO VEGGIE OVERLOAD.

I like the content (ingredient usage and ratio) of Freshly's meals the best by far. I like the taste of Hello Fresh the best, but all three are pretty close in terms of taste (comparing stuff I actually like). Which is: significantly better than fast food or frozen dinners, on par with mid-tier restaurants and simple home recipes (but more convenient), and below top end restaurants or specialty home recipes.]]>
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 07:14:58 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 17 Aug 2018 05:50:26 +0000 curi Open Discussion
you should have a serious discussion forum for people to discuss your platform and policies, where you or your representatives/proxies answer questions and criticisms. that way if people have doubts or disagreements, answers are available. and if you're mistaken about any of your ideas, those mistakes can be corrected instead of left unaddressed.

there should be some kind of written, predictable, reliable mechanism for getting questions/doubts/criticisms/suggestions-for-improvements addressed and resolved, and realistically this will involve a discussion forum (so e.g. people can post a question and then you can write a canonical answer – on the forum or elsewhere and link to it) and then other people can come along and read both the question and answer, and can also reply with followup questions.

for a fuller explanation of why this matters, see:

facebook is not suitable for this.]]>
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:42:57 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

> We uphold this conviction: Open borders for honest immigrants is an application of the principle of individual rights to those foreign born.

> Consequently, we support open borders for all honest men and women. We maintain that honest individuals have the moral right to choose their country of residence, that the government of a free society must uphold and protect that right, and that, in practical terms, the United States throughout its history has greatly benefited from immigration. Andrew Carnegie, Albert Einstein, Jerry Yang (co-founder of Yahoo), Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and numerous other geniuses and/or productive giants were and are immigrants to America; Silicon Valley, for example, is heavily populated with expert, foreign-born engineers. Related, labor force participation rates show that low-skilled immigrant laborers are and have long been among American society's hardest workers. To those who argue that immigrants freeload off of the welfare system, our response is dual: Factually, the welfare state is—overwhelmingly—a problem of native-born Americans, not of immigrants, who generally manifest a superlative work ethic; second, the welfare state must be utterly abolished on purely moral and humanitarian grounds regardless of America's immigration policy.

> Eliminating the welfare state will ensure even further that only those willing to work productively will immigrate to America.

> Expensive background checks to ensure the debarring of jihadists, criminals, and persons bearing communicable diseases are, economically, more than offset by immense productivity gained by welcoming such hard-working immigrants.

Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:32:03 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> from the time of the U.S. founding until the dawn of the Progressive Era—which was the advent of statism in America—the government spent 3 percent or less of the GDP. It now spends close to 40 percent and is increasing rapidly with no end in sight.]]>
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:08:55 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Another Report Says Second-Generation iPhone X and iPhone X Plus Will Support Apple Pencil]]>
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:19:47 +0000
Anonymous Bad Sam Harris Brain Scanning Research Paper
they didn't do any controls, like just reading or button-pressing activities]]>
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 20:27:30 +0000
The shame of the left Kodheaven Open Discussion Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:48:48 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:37:37 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:18:47 +0000
curi Open Discussion
> Actually there have been in these last years all over the world two main political parties: the anti-Fascists, i.e., the friends of Russia (communists, fellow travelers, self-styled liberals and progressives), and the anticommunists, i.e., the friends of Germany (parties of shirts of different colors, not very accurately called “Fascists” by their adversaries). There have been few genuine liberals and democrats in these years.

Lots of relevance to antifa today.]]>
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:21:13 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> "My grandfather is a 96-yr-old German. When seeing Antifa videos, he shakes his head and says; 'We didn't think it could happen in Germany either. These people (Antifa) act and sound like the NAZI party's Sturmabteilung. Stop them now or you'll regret it.'"

> In short order, Simms' tweet had gotten a Kardashian-level number of retweets, well surpassing CNN's average viewership. (And you wonder why the left is fixated on ending free speech on the Internet.)

> Simms’ grandfather didn’t see any of the antifa videos on TV – the media showed only antiseptic clips carefully washed of any untoward behavior. But videos were all over the Internet. (Again, you see why the left wants to shut down free speech on the internet.)”

via Instapaper]]>
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 17:28:16 +0000
curi Open Discussion

That's cool that it can keep a list.

Here's what I wrote:]]>
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 16:07:27 +0000
curi Open Discussion

>>> the U.S. "conservatives" are the real liberals – in favor of freedom, capitalism, limited government, non-revolutionary reform.

>> I can see how that might be the case but you'd have to seperate "conservatives" from "republicans" in order to separate some of the religious right that have very illiberal views. The terms tend to get confusing, I've always considered myself a progressive, and in many ways I probably am, but I think "Classical Liberal" might be closer to my views. But THAT gets confused with libertarian, which I am not.

>> edit: Pinging /u/hossmcdank one of my favorite people when it comes to looking at different ideas without the freak outs.


>> in order to separate some of the religious right that have very illiberal views.
I don't think that's a significant force in US politics today.

> For example, I would consider Ted Cruz to be a prominent, religious, right-wing politician. I don't think he has very illiberal views. And in the 2016 republican primary debates, the other important candidates were less religious and less right wing than Cruz. Do you have in mind some other people (who?) who are more religious than Cruz and significantly different? Or do you have some major objections to Cruz that you think make him illiberal?

> Also, what do you dislike about libertarianism if (as I think you may be implying?) you're in favor of freedom, capitalism, and limited government?]]>
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 14:02:44 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion


Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:05:08 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Even if I get responses from a few more interested/active users, I think most people will never see our discussion.

This is stupid and is maybe reddit's big problem. Discussions die so fast. (Also reddit locks all threads after 6 months, so it can't be used as a long term forum.)]]>
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 08:43:59 +0000
curi Open Discussion

> For sound-bite level of discussion:

> the dems are the party of the KKK

> the nazis were statist, anti-capitalist, anti-liberals and the German socialist workers were voluntary, loyal nazi soldiers.

> the U.S. "conservatives" are the real liberals – in favor of freedom, capitalism, limited government, non-revolutionary reform.

> If you want to get into more detail, then the left/right political spectrum isn't good enough because people's political views are way more complex than just choosing a spot on one (or a few) spectrums.

> the best book on the Nazis, history of WWII, and the relevant economics and ideologies is *Omnipotent Government* by Ludwig von Mises (who is also, in general, the best author to teach people what "liberal" actually means)]]>
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 08:39:45 +0000
curi Objectivists Should Vote Trump!
> It seems to me that Objectivism or any Philosophy of reason would support any rational fight for Capitalism a.k.a individual rights to free trade.

They get confused because e.g. Trump is not a free trader.

And they don't understand current politics and read books like *Adios America*, so they see open borders as a freedom issue and assume Trump is the bad guy. All the comments about immigrants lowering wages by competing for American jobs serve to alienate Objectivists further – economic nationalism is disgusting, ignorant and dangerous.

Harry Binswanger was getting election politics info from sources like: NYT, Nate Silver, HuffPo. He didn't understand it at all when I thought that was super biased and he should read e.g. some David Horowitz. I think most Objectivists are similar and are in the thrall of the #FakeNews mainstream media. Like most MSM victims, they know the media has a lefty bias, which they believe they are clever enough to correct for – but they *under correct* for that bias by a large margin and end up believing a bunch of lefty lies. They underestimate how thoroughly and extremely the media could be lying.

Hillary is much worse than most people know, including Objectivists like Binswanger. They aren't educated about it because they aren't looking at the right sources of information.

> My love and understanding of the Objectivist Philosophy keeps me from thinking that the current leadership in the Ayn Rand community is nothing more than another crop of intellectual idiots.

I fear that they are. Peikoff excommunicated the George Reisman – a great economist who studied under Mises and Rand, and used to be on the ARI board.

ARI doesn't have a discussion forum. The Objectivist community in general lacks ways for mistakes to be corrected through public, rational, online discussion. Charles Tew has some good YouTube videos criticizing some ARI ideas/people and I link to several of my own criticisms in my letter to him:]]>
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 08:24:21 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion]]> Wed, 15 Aug 2018 03:49:53 +0000 Mysterious Person Objectivists Should Vote Trump!
> I do understand why they do not agree with The Donald on political matters. What is so perplexing to me is their leftist media like support for and outright Socialist and known criminal.

One issue is that what you might call Institutional Objectivism (as reflected by ARI) has tried to make itself more compatible with libertarianism, which is a much bigger community. Institutional Libertarianism (as reflected by groups like the Cato Institute) is basically left-wing now (see their support for open borders, letting criminals out to slaughter innocents, etc.) So institutional Oism has been corrupted into being more leftist by trying to outreach to people who have left wing attitudes and prejudices.

> Trump not only campaigned on Making America Great Again but he actually has an inkling of what America a.k.a. the U.S.A is all about. Unlike Hillary's definition of America. She wants to make America Socialist and doesn't hide it in any way save one, she doesn't call it by name.


I remember Trump being introduced at a rally by some lady in Texas who said something like "It's nice to see a candidate who isn't ashamed of his wealth!" Big sense of life difference there!

> It seems to me that Objectivism or any Philosophy of reason would support any rational fight for Capitalism a.k.a individual rights to free trade.

> Hillary is an admitted and direct threat to capitalism and individual rights. Not only does she speak against it when she can but her actions back up her beliefs.

She seriously considered running on UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME:

so yeah, total horrible commie

> Again, the Objectivist distain for Trump's idea's is mostly understandable, their support for the Hilary is completely baffling to me.

I can understand them being critical of various things: e.g. tariffs. But Objectivists should also recognize importance of CONTEXT. During election they shoulda been like "yeah tariffs suck but more taxes/regs/communist healthcare/a lawless supreme court/a corrupt cleptocrat as president sucks worse, VOTE TRUMP!" This was not their attitude however :|

Also his foreign policy has been very nationally self-interested. He's pushing for things to help Americans (getting us out of bogus climate stuff, pushing for more open trade). Seems like Oists should appreciate this?????

> My love and understanding of the Objectivist Philosophy keeps me from thinking that the current leadership in the Ayn Rand community is nothing more than another crop of intellectual idiots. But I cannot, for the life of me, find any of their arguments for Hillary over Trump to have any rationality behind it and thus, I am unconvinced by them.

It's good to give people a chance and think abou their arguments seriously, but I would not give much respect to ARI at all.

Ayn Rand was singular and didn't really have a suitable intellectual heir.

curi has written various criticisms of their stuff and also talked about how even Peikoff (who was solid esp when Rand was alive) didn't even *like* philosophy much.

> Even more so now that Trump has accomplished some of the pro-capitalist things like tax cuts (not big enough, but in the right direction) and deregulation (not even close to enough, but again, in the right direction.)

> He is not a great president in my opinion, but he is far more superior than Hillary is or ever was.

Two solid Supreme Court picks too -- not super amazing, but solid.

Trump is basically a solid conservative president so far. If he builds the wall he will go down as great IMHO.]]>
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 19:01:56 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Pellegrino: Right now, it is only a platform of governing principles and rough political goals. Our purpose is twofold: First—and if we achieve only this, we’ve achieved a lot—we want to help people to think about politics in a way they haven’t before. In the main, people think of politics as two or more opposing sides clashing in debates over social problems, with the purpose of the debates being to achieve a compromise solution. This compromise is supposed to represent the “moderate” and thus “rational” approach to solving the problem. People familiar with Objectivism know that a compromise can take place only between parties who agree on essentials or ultimate goals. When the parties agree on essential aims, the haggling is merely over details or means of accomplishing those goals.

> This, of course, is the lay of the political landscape right now: Two parties, in essential agreement about the proper functions of government, are haggling over how the government should achieve its ends. They agree that government should control the economy, control people’s lives, and make people and businesses give their “fair share” to society. They disagree only on matters of degree and on the particular means to these ends. They argue over whether individuals should be controlled by the federal or state governments—in the bedroom or the boardroom—in health care or investments. They disagree over how government should redistribute wealth—in the traditional ways, or in newfangled ways. And, agreeing on essentials, they come up with all sorts of ideas and programs for controlling people and redistributing wealth. They never question the premise that this is what government should do. That’s an unchallenged absolute. The only questions are how and to what extent should government interfere and redistribute.

This ignores Trump's promise to drain the swamp, and Cruz's more extreme and specific promises along similar lines like abolishing the IRS and various other government agencies that Cruz specifically named. And I think Trump has actually followed through on repealing 2 laws/regulations for each new 1, or something like that, right?

So it's just not true about everyone agreeing on essentials – unless you're calling Trump and Cruz liars, which would require further elaboration (especially about their actions that *are* in line with their rhetoric). There are prominent Republicans who advocate smaller government and more freedom.]]>
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 18:08:21 +0000
Good Post Shannon Objectivists Should Vote Trump!
I do understand why they do not agree with The Donald on political matters. What is so perplexing to me is their leftist media like support for and outright Socialist and known criminal.

Trump not only campaigned on Making America Great Again but he actually has an inkling of what America a.k.a. the U.S.A is all about. Unlike Hillary's definition of America. She wants to make America Socialist and doesn't hide it in any way save one, she doesn't call it by name.

It seems to me that Objectivism or any Philosophy of reason would support any rational fight for Capitalism a.k.a individual rights to free trade.

Hillary is an admitted and direct threat to capitalism and individual rights. Not only does she speak against it when she can but her actions back up her beliefs.

Again, the Objectivist distain for Trump's idea's is mostly understandable, their support for the Hilary is completely baffling to me.

My love and understanding of the Objectivist Philosophy keeps me from thinking that the current leadership in the Ayn Rand community is nothing more than another crop of intellectual idiots. But I cannot, for the life of me, find any of their arguments for Hillary over Trump to have any rationality behind it and thus, I am unconvinced by them.

Even more so now that Trump has accomplished some of the pro-capitalist things like tax cuts (not big enough, but in the right direction) and deregulation (not even close to enough, but again, in the right direction.)

He is not a great president in my opinion, but he is far more superior than Hillary is or ever was.]]>
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 17:15:36 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> The censor was a magistrate in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances.[1]

> The power of the censors was absolute: no magistrate could oppose their decisions, only another censor who succeeded them could cancel it.

> The censors' regulation of public morality is the origin of the modern meaning of the words "censor" and "censorship".[2]]]>
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 05:20:42 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Another good one, mocking lack of wall progress:

**Trump: Don't you see? The wall was inside you all along!**]]>
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 18:30:38 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
thread title (no real content in thread as of now):

*"What My 'Knockout Game' Experience Taught Me About My Unconscious Bias" (Vox)"*]]>
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:47:50 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:22:58 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
>> Sometimes," he said, summing up the discussion with an aphorism I have never forgotten, "if you find yourself stuck in politics, the thing to do is start a fight--start a fight, even if you do not know how you are going to win it, because it is only when a fight is on, and everything is in motion, that you can hope to see your way through.

Reminds me of this article especially rules 1+ 3]]>
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:22:28 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
>Sometimes," he said, summing up the discussion with an aphorism I have never forgotten, "if you find yourself stuck in politics, the thing to do is start a fight--start a fight, even if you do not know how you are going to win it, because it is only when a fight is on, and everything is in motion, that you can hope to see your way through.]]>
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 13:41:38 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
The ignoramuses should read Mises.]]>
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 13:19:18 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 13 Aug 2018 13:06:08 +0000 curi Open Discussion
Link to Alan's post:]]>
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 09:14:54 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 13 Aug 2018 07:48:58 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
>Another person who gave testimony said: "We are going to take the land, even if it means we're going back to the dark ages. This country must be African. We are African."]]>
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 02:44:50 +0000
curi Open Discussion]]>
Sun, 12 Aug 2018 19:49:47 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
+1 👍]]>
Sun, 12 Aug 2018 18:15:23 +0000
guilherme Open Discussion Sun, 12 Aug 2018 17:42:01 +0000 curi Open Discussion

it won't stay that way when you go to a new page (click reply, click post comment, etc), but you can bookmark it and load the page faster initially with fewer comments.]]>
Sun, 12 Aug 2018 17:31:19 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Oh hey, Omri got hired by Ted Cruz :)

And took his blog down :(]]>
Sun, 12 Aug 2018 17:05:36 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Fortnite is launching on Android, some time after iOS. Three interesting things. First, Epic has decided to bypass the Google Play store and get people to side-load the installation direct from its website: this lets it avoid paying Google commission on in-app purchases, but raises a hurdle to installation - it's betting demand is strong enough, which is probably correct (Apple doesn't allow this on iOS). Second, this also encourages pretty unsafe behavior - there will be a lot of people trying to trick users (and a lot of Fortnite players are children) into downloading malware from look-alike sites (which is a major reason why Apple doesn't allow this, quite apart from the 30% tax). Third, Epic estimates that of the >2.5bn Android phones out there, only 250m are capable of running the game. [Link](

ugh @ these security problems that are going to hurt kids, and how shitty the android ecosystem and community is.

also i'm curious how are you going to play a fast paced shooter on a phone? this is a game where you aim a gun with your mouse and you fight other human beings, not just handicapped enemies controlled by the computer and designed to be easy enough to beat with bad controls.]]>
Sun, 12 Aug 2018 15:37:02 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:40:47 +0000 FF Open Discussion Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:34:56 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:19:44 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 12 Aug 2018 10:32:07 +0000 FF Open Discussion
Sun, 12 Aug 2018 08:54:20 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

See #10606 for the post.]]>
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 12:01:06 +0000
curi Open Discussion

My process for separating non-knowledge from knowledge includes Paths Forward – always keeping options open so that my mistakes can be corrected by anyone who knows something I don't. Most intellectuals don't do this – there's no organized process for sharing important knowledge with them that they don't know.

I think the approach (from the podcast) of *seeking, validating and integrating* knowledge is mistaken/incomplete because it doesn't cover *correcting errors*. Validating means you find out something is valid, which isn't an *ongoing process of looking for and fixing errors* (nor is it *a process of ongoing improvement*, as Eli Goldratt put it in _The Goal_).

Also, instead of "fake knowledge" I would say "mistakes" (or errors), which is different than non-knoweldge (things where you're neutral, you haven't made a judgment).

About experts, a major criterion I use is: Is this expert asking the questions I would ask (and considering the criticisms that I would) if I studied the issue myself? Is he using the methods I would use? Is he aware of the key knowledge I'd use to check for errors in this area? Is he doing the work for me that I would have done (so he can be a good proxy for me) or not? For example, I won't accept expert ideas from non-Objectivists regarding capitalism because they aren't thinking about it in the way I would have. Also I criticized steelmanning recently at]]>
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 11:59:00 +0000
curi Open Discussion]]>
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 10:36:26 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Today, he employs people to patrol his Facebook page, YouTube account, and forum, deleting information and user accounts that challenge his self-proclaimed role as the "salvation of philosophy" and the first man in history to give parents a moral framework for "peaceful parenting."]]>
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 10:32:06 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

he DMCAs critical youtube videos and tries to get critical forums shut down.

his wife is a therapist. he went in the vents and listened in on some of her sessions. there was a lawsuit. he admitted this in a podcast, then edited it out of the podcast later.;topicseen#new

> Anyone who knows Molyneux's past knows he has no problems nuking critics' YT channels or online forums he doesn't like and then use the excuse of harassment, racism, etc with no proof beyond his accusation.

> Unfortunately, Molyneux often ignores the need to cite his influences or give references. As a result, many of his followers today—who came into FDR as a result of his podcasts—mistakenly believe that most of the ideas discussed originated with Molyneux. Is it plagiarism? Well, Molyneux doesn’t specifically *claim* to be the author of those ideas. He simply discusses them—unattributed—with great passion and lets his acolytes draw their own conclusions.]]>
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 10:13:39 +0000
curi Open Discussion]]>
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 09:24:00 +0000
oh my god it's turpentine Open Discussion]]>
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 07:40:33 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 10 Aug 2018 22:55:51 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 19:43:16 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Maybe now FF will stop praising Molyneux and suggesting Molyneux is any good.]]>
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:38:58 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:35:28 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:28:54 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

> how does this forum work?


> how does moderation work here? is there transparency for moderator actions? if you do anything wrong, do you get it explained to you, or just have to try to guess what's going on? is this mostly a free speech zone, or not? is criticism welcome? are unpopular views desired here or suppressed (the reputation system concerns me)?

> and why is there a filter on what words i can say? it claims to be a profanity filter but my original title did not contain profanity and my post was blocked anyway.


I guess the post will never go up:


At least one of Justin's two posts *did* go up on the forum, then was removed later, without explanation.]]>
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:22:10 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:19:25 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
I think the wod "moderation" violates the "profanity" filter. i made the title vague and then it posted fine. jfc.]]>
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:16:12 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:12:50 +0000
curi Open Discussion]]>
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:02:57 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Thu, 09 Aug 2018 19:33:00 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion

Thu, 09 Aug 2018 11:09:54 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
The tweet is:

Thu, 09 Aug 2018 11:05:26 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Thu, 09 Aug 2018 10:28:51 +0000 curi Open Discussion
So I had multitwitch open on 4 Overwatch streams, chat closed, went AFK ... and see this the next morning. huh. I wonder if he gave every viewer a free sub or something.]]>
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 10:27:01 +0000
FF Open Discussion Thu, 09 Aug 2018 04:48:47 +0000 FF How Many People Don't Understand Links? Thu, 09 Aug 2018 04:46:52 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:05:29 +0000
curi Open Discussion

Looking more:

> Although we will be suggesting revisions and improvements to the scheme, many psychologists currently suggest that personality can best be understood in terms of five essential personality characteristics: these are the ‘Big 5’, which each make a scale between extremes

> our placing on them predicts how we behave.

the big 5 sux

> For example, high Conscientiousness as a child predicts greater success in education and employment; high Neuroticism predicts problems with mood swings, anxiety and depression.

correlation isn't prediction.

these correlations are actually weak.

the correlations are between *scores on certain tests*, given labels like "Conscientiousness", and certain metrics of education and employment success. the metrics are incomplete, and some of them are basically what people self-report on a questionaire (as against better, more objective but still flawed metrics like salary).

> But in summary, the Endogenous personality, necessary for genius, is self-sufficient, indifferent to the opinions of others or normal social aims, being instead wrapped-up in his own personal goals, and making judgements using his own internal, subjective evaluation systems – he will work very hard and for long periods on his own projects, but will not willingly go-along with other people’s plans and schemes. But more on this later…

this is OK but it's not telling me anything i didn't already know. how about you reply now with quotes from some parts you think are good and that i'd want to read.

PS I like this comment by Mises about genius in *Human Action*:

> Education, whatever benefits it may confer, is transmission of traditional doctrines and valuations; it is by necessity conservative. It produces imitation and routine, not improvement and progress. Innovators and creative geniuses cannot be reared in schools. They are precisely the men who defy what the school has taught them.]]>
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 16:55:06 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Extremist Muslim father arrested at New Mexico compound housing 11 starving children was 'training them to commit school shootings' and had set up target practice area on the site]]>
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 15:32:47 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Wed, 08 Aug 2018 15:10:30 +0000 curi Open Discussion
Alex Epstein is starting a new podcast series. This one is about the need for knowledge in life, and the difficulty of differentiating correct and incorrect ideas (there are tons of things where good ideas already exist, you don't have to invent a solution yourself, but there are many contradicting claims and it's hard to know which ideas to listen to).

Episode 1 focuses on *stating the problem* and comments on some examples like nutrition and psychology. It's good. I have lower expectations for future episodes where he gets into solutions.

He's using a [Facebook group]( as a discussion forum for people to talk about this stuff. Meh. I think it means he doesn't want real discussions. He mentions in the future there may be other options like YouTube comments (also not a discussion forum).

I signed up for email notifications of new episodes:

It's named *The Human Flourishing Project* even though it's about getting correct knowledge. Alex focuses specifically on knowledge that helps people have better lives, which he calls flourishing.

I posted this comment on the FB group:

> The field of philosophy which deals with knowledge – its nature, reliability, methods of attainment, etc – is epistemology. Objectivism offers an epistemology with many good characteristics, but also including induction – which Ayn Rand openly said was problematic and that she didn't personally know the solution. No Objectivist has written a serious refutation of Karl Popper's criticisms of induction, nor of his solution to what to do instead in order to get and evaluate knowledge. This is a major problem and there are no Objectivist discussion forums to resolve it at. (There are similar issues with e.g. Kantian forums, but they also have so many other problems it's overwhelming and it's hard to figure out what to productively do about those clashes.)]]>
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 13:20:48 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
currently the top group of stories:

Tue, 07 Aug 2018 10:07:21 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

looks like apple claims ToS violation on the podcasts but didn't see a ToS violation for the app.


> Apple has been clear that it takes its guidelines seriously, with Eddy Cue stating at South by Southwest last spring that "we do think free speech is important, but we don't think white supremacist speech or hate speech is free speech that ought to be out there."

Tue, 07 Aug 2018 10:06:07 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Google Releases Android 9 Pie as Previous Oreo Release is Installed on Just 12% of Devices]]>
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 10:03:18 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Also curious: Apple only removed Infowars from their podcast directory — the Infowars app remains in the App Store. Different standards? Seems hard to justify de-listing the podcasts for “hate speech” but leaving the app in place when it contains the same content.

DF said something true and notable instead of something evil and leftist :)]]>
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 10:02:24 +0000
anonymous Open Discussion
> I updated the FI book recommendations page by adding this paragraph:
> Note: *If you don't like a book, stop reading it*. Ask a question about it, share a criticism, or try something else. If it's too difficult, *stop reading* and seek help or try something else. Reading books you don't like, or don't understand, won't help you. Book recommendations are a *starting point*, but it's up to you to evaluate the book for yourself after you've read some (specifically evaluate its value to you right now, not its value in general).

Thank you for adding this. I think it'll make a big difference.]]>
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 05:00:55 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 06 Aug 2018 21:32:10 +0000 Anonymous Mises Against Open Borders]]>
Mon, 06 Aug 2018 21:08:01 +0000
curi Mises Against Open Borders Mon, 06 Aug 2018 13:51:38 +0000 Apple Censorship Anonymous Open Discussion
> Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes has become the latest to say no to Alex Jones. The service has pulled down all of his podcasts and most offered by his network, Infowars. Apple hasn’t publicly explained the move, but Facebook recently suspended his profile for bullying and hate speech.]]>
Mon, 06 Aug 2018 13:38:28 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Ray Cathode writes:

>> Popper had a mistaken view of the nature of induction. In essence, he tried to argue that inductions are formed by the observation of regularity in nature., i.e. the sun has risen each and every morning of my life so it should rise again tomorrow. That is not how induction works, induction works by identifying the causal reasons that the sun appears to rise each morning, i.e. the rotation of the earth on its axis relative to the sun - it is the discovery of that cause, that enables us, ceteris paribus, to be certain that the sun will rise . Also, rejecting induction is the rejection of any kind of knowledge. It is induction, after all, that provides the premises for deductive arguments. Induction is the means by which our perceptions are formed into concepts and then into propositions.

>> I would like to know what you believe is missing in Objectivism, if that is your claim.

curi replies:

> Popper said there are many variations on induction. He directly addressed more than one, and he also gave multiple arguments covering the general themes of inductive errors. You propose induction works by identifying causality. This is a major break with what "induction" has meant in the history of philosophy. You do not say by what method you propose identifying causality, nor why you regard that method as inductive specifically. Saying that you identify causality by induction wouldn't cover what you do – what the steps are, how it's done, or how it avoids the logical problems that make other attempts at induction impossible that Popper explained.

> Ayn Rand wrote almost nothing about induction, and said she didn't have a solution to some of the problems with it. I don't know what work by some other Objectivist thinker you believe both addresses Popper (with quotes and details, showing understanding of what the problems Popper brought up are, and how to address them, as well as commenting on Popper's positive epistemology) and also provides a clear explanation of specifically how induction works and how to do it.]]>
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 21:06:15 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 05 Aug 2018 21:03:08 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 05 Aug 2018 18:59:45 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 18:27:27 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
>> Who else is even in contention?

> i don't know, not a big TV watcher... i've seen some hannity, he's ok but not as good as tucker. and saw some bill o'reilly in the past, who was ok but not as good as tucker. others are generally awful, though i did largely enjoy stephen colbert's right wing persona (i think it's actually smarter than his real left wing persona).

> what about online shows like crowder or levin? any great ones?

not that i know of.

if we're including podcasts I'd say Daniel Horowitz is great. His podcasts sometimes run pretty long so he can do like an hour plus on one topic. He goes into lots of detail on issues, history, policy, law, legislation etc. he has guests. he even had JEFF SESSIONS as a guest.

i don't know of any other really solid shows offhand. I haven't watched Levin (was paywalled last time i checked) and Crowder is funny but not super amazing imho]]>
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 18:26:33 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> A vicious mob targeted the ICE office and even a food cart. The police followed orders to do nothing.

> Andy NgoAug. 3, 2018 5:24 p.m. ET

> Along the trolley tracks behind the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, a biohazard cleanup crew works under police protection. It finds used needles and buckets of human waste simmering in nearly 100-degree heat. The smell of urine and feces fills the block. For more than five weeks, as many as 200 people had occupied the site to demand ICE’s immediate abolition. They’re gone now, but a community is left reeling. Thirty-eight days of government-sanctioned anarchy will do that.

> A mob surrounded ICE’s office in Southwest Portland June 19. They barricaded the exits and blocked the driveway. They sent “guards” to patrol the doors, trapping workers inside. At night they laid on the street, stopping traffic at a critical junction near a hospital. Police stayed away. “At this time I am denying your request for additional resources,” the Portland Police Bureau’s deputy chief, Robert Day, wrote to federal officers pleading for help. Hours later, the remaining ICE workers were finally evacuated by a small federal police team. The facility shut down for more than a week.

> Signs called ICE employees “Nazis” and “white supremacists.” Others accused them of running a “concentration camp,” and demanded open borders and prosecution of ICE agents. Along a wall, vandals wrote the names of ICE staff, encouraging others to publish their private information online.

> Federal workers were defenseless. An ICE officer, who asked that his name not be published, told me one of his colleagues was trailed in a car and confronted when he went to pick up his daughter from summer camp. Later people showed up at his house. Another had his name and photo plastered on flyers outside his home accusing him of being part of the “Gestapo.”

> Where were the police? Ordered away by Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler, who doubles as police commissioner. “I do not want the @PortlandPolice to be engaged or sucked into a conflict, particularly from a federal agency that I believe is on the wrong track,” he tweeted. “If [ICE is] looking for a bailout from this mayor, they are looking in the wrong place.”

> The mob set up camp behind the building, where they harassed journalists and banned photography. The open-borders advocates also erected an 8-foot wall around their site. I walked through and saw young children, including infants, in squalid conditions and 90-degree heat. Every American flag was defaced. Anarchist and communist flags were unsoiled.

> Stuart Lindquist, the ICE facility’s 79-year-old landlord, visited his property on June 21. “The political powers in the city of Portland have stopped the police from doing what they normally would do,” he told me. When he attempted to drive into the parking lot, occupiers swarmed and pounded his windows. In the commotion, Mr. Lindquist’s car struck someone in the mob, who wasn’t injured. His home address later appeared online, and he says the harassment hasn’t stopped.

> On June 28 federal police mobilized from out of state finally moved to reopen the office. They arrested a handful of people for refusing to leave the ICE office’s front, but the rest retreated to the camp and focused their vitriol on the officers. They repeatedly called a black officer “traitor” and “house n—.” They shouted that they knew where the officers lived, and published more addresses online.

> The same day Mayor Wheeler again pledged not to intervene. In a statement, he whitewashed the lawless behavior: “I join those outraged by ICE actions separating parents from their children, and support peaceful protest to give voice to our collective moral conscience.”

> The Hakes family, which owns the Happy Camper food cart across the street from ICE’s office, responded to the statement with incredulity. The mob “terrorized our family” and forced the business to close, Julie Hakes told me. Ms. Hakes showed me text messages from her 21-year-old daughter, Brianna, who ran the cart. “Just saw a drug deal,” Brianna reported early on. After members of the anti-ICE mob spotted her selling breakfast burritos to federal officers, the situation deteriorated. “Call me immediately!” Brianna wrote after being accused of “supporting the pigs” and “child deportation.” She said people wearing masks threatened to hurt her and burn down the cart, and the police never responded to their frantic calls.

> Randy Glary, a 52-year-old artist and longtime resident, was photographing the camp when he said a group of occupiers knocked his camera into his face. Charles Williams, a 62-year-old man who lives across the street, said someone threatened to stab him with an “AIDS-infected needle.” From his balcony, he saw the “thugs” begin masked street patrols. Others brandished sticks. Lisa Leonard, a 53-year-old disabled resident, said occupiers hit her on her head, disabled her electric wheelchair, and lifted her in the air when she complained about loud drumming. She called police, who took a statement but made no arrests.

> The locals who spoke to me all wondered why the city allowed this and ignored their calls for intervention. Peter Simpson, a public-information officer with the Portland Police Bureau, explained that “at the mayor’s direction, PPB involvement was very limited” until July 25.

> Back at the trolley tracks, the occupiers have been evicted but taxpayers will have to foot the costly cleanup bill. The Hakes family is still trying to recover. Brianna has decided to move out of the neighborhood. “They know my face and car,” she said. Like other residents I spoke to, she expects the mob to return.]]>
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 18:22:15 +0000
curi Open Discussion
it helps if you get more specific. by what *mechanism* does God explain human intelligence? God created the universe and the laws of physics, and then biological evolution created humans that are intelligent *somehow* (God's role is kinda indirect/limited and doesn't help explain how intelligence works)? God personally/directly created intelligence originally (explains the origins, instead of evolution) ... and then it works according to and within the laws of physics? by being a computer running software? or is God involved in our thinking at all times, and if he disappeared we'd lose our intelligence? like our brains are computers but God is constantly changing some of the data, while it's running, in order to help us get intelligent instead of non-intelligent thoughts, and without that interference our brain software wouldn't work? does God do that for animals too – e.g. for a wolf's purposeful hunting behavior – or only for humans? or is there some other mechanism? or maybe there aren't consistent laws of physics, we live in a magical world where the rules keep changing depending on God's moods or decisions or something, and yet our intelligence seems to consistently work anyway, which is because ... what?]]>
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 10:37:15 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Who else is even in contention?

i don't know, not a big TV watcher... i've seen some hannity, he's ok but not as good as tucker. and saw some bill o'reilly in the past, who was ok but not as good as tucker. others are generally awful, though i did largely enjoy stephen colbert's right wing persona (i think it's actually smarter than his real left wing persona).

what about online shows like crowder or levin? any great ones?]]>
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 10:14:04 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> not all companies are. github is kind of a tragic tale that's all-too-common in the valley of a well-meaning but naive white dork founder who gets browbeaten by the social justice crowd and continually caves to their demands until they finally decide to devour him.
> It started when some SJWs got upset that he had a rug in his office saying "In Meritocracy We Trust" which they claimed was their justification of 'white privilege' and an excuse for why there were so many white male engineers at Github. So they scrapped the rug and 'pledged to make changes' which really meant making diversity hires in a show of kissing the ring. Then there was this bizarre sexual harassment suit that got brought by one of the diversity hires that was ultimately revealed to be baseless, but by then the damage was done. because being accused of sexual harassment is almost as bad as actually committing it, he stepped down, and now people are claiming this whole thing is actually good for github because they're bringing in 'professionals' to 'clean up' the culture.

> What this will mean is: their best engineers will leave (the cream of the crop left long ago--these guys are very good at sussing out the social justice bullshit,) and the company will cling to life as it's overtaken by competitors. Github will be fine for a while before it begins its downward slide, however, and social justice types will parade around this as demonstrating how diversity/progressivism 'helps' companies.

> This also happened to the CEO of Mozilla (firefox.)]]>
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 08:33:21 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

> Tucker the best TV news host? By far?

Who else is even in contention?

Like Hannity is okay but nowhere near same tier.

Maybe Ingraham is good? I haven't watched her show]]>
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 08:32:00 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
I had thee same view about it in the beginning, but the author does not use "altruism" properly. He is only referring to the outcome and not an intention.]]>
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 07:29:41 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

Tucker the best TV news host? By far?]]>
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 21:58:26 +0000
PAS Open Discussion
To which my answer has been that we don't know. But God doesn't provide an answer either, since saying the universe came from God just pushes the question back one level: where did God come from?

They (Christians) find "God is eternal" to be a satisfactory answer to where God came from. I get stuck when they say it's satisfactory to them, and I say it's not to me.

I can anticipate a similar result with your answer about knowledge. They'd say something like "God is the explanation of how that's possible or what's going on there". And they'd say God is explained in the Bible, and I'd say it's an unsatisfactory explanation to me and they'd say it's satisfactory to them...stuck.]]>
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 18:36:25 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
>> You could propose that knowledge always existed and was never originally created. God is eternal. That's not satisfactory either.

> Why is that not satisfactory?

The context was the questions:

> *How can knowledge be created from non-knowledge? Where could knowledge come from originally?*

Saying it's eternal doesn't answer those questions. It's like half an answer to "originally" (answer: it didn't – but no explanation of how that's possible or what's going on there), and no answer at all to how new knowledge is created (by human intelligence, by biological evolution, etc).

If your goal is to explain how humans can think of new things like inventing spaceships, or explain where animal eyes came from (with their appearance of design), then saying "God is eternal" does not address the issue.]]>
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 17:56:52 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 15:41:37 +0000
PAS Open Discussion
> You could propose that knowledge always existed and was never originally created. God is eternal. That's not satisfactory either.

Why is that not satisfactory?]]>
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 12:20:43 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 09:25:43 +0000
curi Open Discussion
> The Endogenous personality is the ‘inner’ Man; a person whose outlook on life is ‘inward.’ He is inner-directed, inner-driven, inner-motivated; one who uses inner modes of thinking, inner evaluations, in-tuition; one who is to a high degree autonomous, self-sufficient; one who is relatively indifferent to social pressures, influences and inducements.

And also says:

> Geniuses are altruistic, in the sense that their work is primarily for the good of the group; and not for the usual social rewards such as status, money, sex, and popularity.

This is silly. It says geniuses are self-oriented ... and that they work primarily for the good of the group.

These statements occur in close proximity near the beginning.

There are other silly things but I'll skim some more later.]]>
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 08:45:27 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Sat, 04 Aug 2018 08:34:57 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 05:53:13 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Ultimate Sarah Jeong racist tweet collection link:]]>
Fri, 03 Aug 2018 20:33:35 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Context: Jeong wrote very racist, nasty tweets and got hired by NYT.]]>
Fri, 03 Aug 2018 10:22:31 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

> I just finished season 2.

> It has a narrator and sometimes it cuts to modern scholars saying things about Rome. It's kinda a live action show, but with documentary stuff too. It's a good mix. I like the style.

Great recommendation, thanks 🙏
Best part so far for me was when Caesar had a problem he solved by BUILDING A WALL. Then he had another problem and solved it by BUILDING ANOTHER WALL. Very inspirational 🙂]]>
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 17:41:56 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
(background here

> "folks, remember the Mexican rapists? the famous rapists. i say some mexicans that are coming in are rapists, are bad hombres, and that's true, undeniable, and the media, the mainstream media, these lovely people back there *points*
> *crowd chants 'CNN sucks' for 3 minutes*

> ...oh boy, you guys are rough, rough stuff, how do you really feel huh? *chuckles and shakes head*

> Anyways so the famous rapists,


> "Donald Trump said all Mexicans are rapists. Donald Trump said the Russians should hack the emails. Donald Trump Donald Trump*


> ...right? Our fake news, our lovely fake news people, so they go bananas, they go bananas over my statement. But then this lady here, oh boy, I've got it right here

> *pulls several printed pages out of suit pocket*

> I've got it right here folks, oh boy, she's the newest hire for the New York Times. Listen, can you believe this? You're not gonna believe it. Sarah Jong, okay? Ms Jong, what does she say?

> Here's what she says on her tweets:

> 'Oh man, it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men'

> *crowd boos loudly*

> Can you imagine? I know, I know, terrible.

> Here's another one from Miss Jong:

> 'Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.'


> Amazing. New York Times Editorial board! *Trump waves papers* Was this her resume? Maybe it was her resume!

> I gotta read one more, okay, one more?

> Oh boy I can't even read this one, I see kids in the crowd folks, oh boy, well, I'll kinda reading it, okay? I'll kinda read it and you will get the idea. Not very presidential, but that's okay right?

> 'Dumbass....couldn't avoid that one, sorry, first word, don't know how else to say it....Dumbass f'n white people marking up the internet with their dogs peeing and she didn't say peeing okay? but like dogs peeing on fire hydrants.'


> It's a shame folks. And they complain when I call them the enemy of the people!"]]>
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 17:17:53 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Lyft, Uber, and Via proposed a $100 million fund for underwater medallion owners, but the [NYC] mayor and the City Council said no thanks]]>
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 14:38:28 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

this perspective is worth being aware of. but Burke was a liberal. you could call it the reformer liberals vs. the utopian radical liberals.]]>
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 14:35:42 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion




new with mostly non-video non-image posts:

Wed, 01 Aug 2018 19:18:10 +0000
curi Open Discussion

I just finished season 2.

It has a narrator and sometimes it cuts to modern scholars saying things about Rome. It's kinda a live action show, but with documentary stuff too. It's a good mix. I like the style.

I also especially liked HBO's Rome show from 5-10 years ago. It was way better than Game of Thrones.]]>
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 13:45:29 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Apple bought back lots of stock contrary to media fears. It has a low price/earnings ratio:]]>
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 12:22:11 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Tommy Robinson Free – MEF [Middle East Forum, with Daniel Pipes as president] Heavily Involved]]>
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:19:07 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> In the 1980s, the universities embraced two antithetical agendas, both costly and reliant on borrowed money. On the one hand, campuses competed for scarcer students by styling themselves as Club Med–type resorts with costly upscale dorms, tony student-union centers, lavish gyms, and an array of in loco parentis social services. The net effect was to make colleges responsible not so much for education, but more for shielding now-fragile youth from the supposed reactionary forces that would buffet them after graduation.

is that true? is that new? is that a change that started in the 80's?]]>
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:00:34 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

Judging by a few dozen headlines, ~all articles on major political issues are anti-Trump.]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 20:14:32 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:33:43 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
> The Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Labor announced an agreement Tuesday to work together in cracking down on companies that "discriminate" against U.S. workers by hiring foreign workers.

> The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and the Labor Department will start sharing information on employers, refer issues to the appropriate officials at each department and offer training to each other’s staff under the agreement.

> Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore said in a statement that the agreement will help the civil rights division’s “ability to identify employers the favor temporary visa holders over U.S. workers who can do the job.”

> “Employers should hire workers based on their skills, experience, and authorization to work; not based on discriminatory preferences that violate the law,” he said.
> Rosemary Lahasky, the deputy assistant secretary for Labor's employment and training administration, said in a statement that sharing the information “will help protect U.S. workers from unlawful discrimination.”]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:13:22 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:44:22 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:34:24 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
> Mr. Goldberg’s thesis, gleaned from reviews and his endless electronic media appearances, is that the biggest thing (if not the only thing) that makes “the West” great are our Enlightenment/Lockean/Classical Liberal values.

and these values are under attack by the tribalist left and the tribalist right, but good old Mr. Goldberg has figured out the golden mean of non-extremist values. (this is a joke b/c the golden mean is a pre-enlightenment greek idea)

> This argument is retarded because of mankind’s historical record between the late seventeenth century (when Mr. Goldberg marks the emergence of his preferred values), and the 1960s. During these 300 or so years, each and every Lockean, free marketer, Classical Liberal, and Enlightenment proponent was a “tribalist” by Mr. Goldberg’s standards—and “racist” by the standards of basically everyone alive today.

Nah, it's dumber than that.

what about greece, rome, and the renaissance? what about the magna carta?

there were good things before the enlightenment, so ummm yeah...]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:25:30 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Then, more recently, Mr. Brimelow emailed me a mixed review of the book [Jonah Goldberg’s Burkean Turn, June 26, 2018] by Matt Purple at The American Conservative and asked me again if I might review it. While I am aware of the longstanding tradition of writers shamelessly reviewing books without reading them (two brilliant writers, George Orwell and Joe Sobran, both did this, the former even writing an amusing essay about the practice.), I think this practice is detestable, and hope to never do it. So I replied to Mr. Brimelow: “Ugh. I'd be willing to write you an amusing polemical article-length explanation as to why I am not willing to read/review it. That's the best offer I can give.”

> And incredibly, Mr. Brimelow said “Sure.” So, dear reader, here we are.

lol @ the topic counter offer and it being accepted]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 16:57:12 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Thanks to the pioneering work of Paul Meehl (and follow-up work by Robyn Dawes), we have known since at least the 1950s that very simple mathematical models outperform supposed experts at predicting important outcomes in clinical settings.]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:17:11 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> “Educational institutions have the requisite expertise and the right to make the inherently academic judgments on how to set criteria for their student admissions and in particular, what kind, quality, or extent of diversity will best enhance the educational experience of students and allow those students to flourish,” they wrote. “It would be an extraordinary infringement on universities’ academic freedom to decree that institutions of higher education cannot consider race at all in seeking to obtain that diversity,” they said.

Racist universities explicitly rejecting a race-blind, skin-color-blind approach to dealing with people.]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:09:37 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:33:42 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
The Mises quotes are at:]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:46:02 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Belgian funded PA school still named after terrorist mass murderer

> PA ignores Belgian demands to change name, yet Belgian funding of the PA continues unabated]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:55:32 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Hi there,

> When I was a teenager, my dad used to say that nothing good happens after midnight.

> I know, he sounds fun, right?

> But in this case, he was correct, because enrollment for Freelance250k closes tonight at midnight :)

How can such transparent and stupid social crap work on people?]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:54:58 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion >

That report says nothing about psychiatry. What it does say is how easy it was - and to a large extent still is - for child abusers to use the system for their own ends.]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:46:02 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:58:41 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:55:34 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:49:58 +0000 oh my god it's turpentine Open Discussion]]>
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:22:51 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
impersonator accounts should have an indicator that's visible without reading the profile text. really bad of him to do this, IMO.]]>
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:01:28 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

> “One of the most pathetic—and dangerous—signs of our times is the growing number of individuals and groups who believe that no one can possibly disagree with them for any honest reason.”]]>
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:59:32 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Note: *If you don't like a book, stop reading it*. Ask a question about it, share a criticism, or try something else. If it's too difficult, *stop reading* and seek help or try something else. Reading books you don't like, or don't understand, won't help you. Book recommendations are a *starting point*, but it's up to you to evaluate the book for yourself after you've read some (specifically evaluate its value to you right now, not its value in general).]]>
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:50:40 +0000
curi Open Discussion

> IN dealing with the problems of social and economic policies, the social sciences consider only one question: whether the measures suggested are really suited to bringing about the effects sought by their authors, or whether they result in a state of affairs which—from the viewpoint of their supporters—is even more undesirable than the previous state which it was intended to alter. The economist does not substitute his own judgment about the desirability of ultimate ends for that of his fellow citizens. He merely asks whether the ends sought by nations, governments, political parties, and pressure groups can indeed be attained by the methods actually chosen for their realization.

I don't agree with Mises about this. I think economics **can** do this, and *commonly* does, and it's a great, valuable thing to be able to do. But I don't think it's the **only** thing economics and the social sciences can productively deal with and do.

> It is, to be sure, a thankless task. Most people are intolerant of any criticism of their social and economic tenets.

:) @ mises saying it. :( @ it being true

> They do not understand that the objections raised refer only to unsuitable methods and do not dispute the ultimate ends of their efforts.

The economic ideas and objections raised by Mises are helpful for people, like Rand and myself, who *do* dispute their ultimate ends.

I think Mises is mistaken to expect to be judged with such neutrality. His ideas have consequences. Those consequences are good for everyone in the same way Objectivism and TCS are, but I don't agree Mises is fully in a separate category (I can agree his work *partly* is). It's unsurprising for these things to be viciously opposed by people who don't understand them and see a threat.

> They are not prepared to admit the possibility that they might attain their ends more easily by following the economists’ advice than by disregarding it.

Mises is ignoring or underestimating or something the extent to which people have bad ends. Ultimately, in the long run, if they sorted out enough of the contradictions between their ends, and learned enough, and fixed enough of their static memes, and so on, we expect they would settle on Objectivism, capitalism, etc. but they don't know that and they aren't there yet and in the mean time they have all kinds of ends that are bad and which are incompatible with Mises' worldview. Right now they want X and Y. If they understood Mises, they'd stop wanting X, start wanting Z, and learn a better way to get Y. They see this as a threat to X, not a way to help them get X. It sorta is ... but they'd be better off in their own judgment in the new situation. But that's hard to understand.]]>
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:40:29 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> It's a lot better than the work of people who currently claim to represent him at the Mises Institute.

aren't basically ALL his books better than what the current "Mises" (Rothbard) Institute ppl can write?]]>
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:18:08 +0000
omnipotent government oh my god it's turpentine Open Discussion Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:15:33 +0000