Some people claim they find email a hassle to use, and email quote formatting a burden.
They seem to like places like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit where they can write stuff more quickly.
OK, guys. Here you go. I've always had blog comments that are even easier than that. You don't even register an account. Write whatever you want and hit submit. That's it.
There are no format rules in blog comments, no worries that you're sending people a bunch of dumb emails. Just write and hit submit, that's it. Just as easy as Facebook, etc. Better, actually, because of no stupid stuff like post length limits. My blog comments actually keep it simpler. You can use them like IMs.
So go ahead, write in the comments on this thread all the stuff you would have posted to FI list if only it had lower standards and no formatting rules. It's just blog comments. Say whatever. Who cares? Let's go!
Edit: (Re-edit) I had a link to a subreddit here. But it turns out reddit doesn't let you keep discussing stuff that's 6+ months old, so fuck that.
Edit 2: Note there are now more than 100 comments in the discussion. (Which took under half a day to reach.) Join the discussion!
Edit 3: So if you don't know how to use the site, you want to use the Recent Comments page to view the latest 50 comments. The link is in the left sidebar, so you can find it normally. And at the bottom of that page is a link to view ALL comments.
Messages (851)
You didn't even link FI list! What if someone doesn't know what you're talking about?
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/info
Keating had come here prepared to exercise caution and tact to the limit of his ability; he had achieved a purpose he had not expected to achieve; he knew he should take no chances, say nothing else and leave. But something inexplicable, beyond all practical considerations, was pushing him on. He said unheedingly:
“Can’t you be human for once in your life?”
“What?”
“Human! Simple. Natural.”
“But I am.”
“Can’t you ever relax?”
Roark smiled, because he was sitting on the window sill, leaning sloppily against the wall, his long legs hanging loosely, the cigarette held without pressure between limp fingers.
“That’s not what I mean!” said Keating. “Why can’t you go out for a drink with me?”
“What for?”
“Do you always have to have a purpose? Do you always have to be so damn serious? Can’t you ever do things without reason, just like everybody else? You’re so serious, so old. Everything’s important with you, everything’s great, significant in some way, every minute, even when you keep still. Can’t you ever be comfortable—and unimportant?”
“No.”
“Don’t you get tired of the heroic?”
“What’s heroic about me?”
“Nothing. Everything. I don’t know. It’s not what you do. It’s what you make people feel around you.”
“What?”
“The un-normal. The strain. When I’m with you—it’s always like a choice. Between you—and the rest of the world. I don’t want that kind of a choice. I don’t want to be an outsider. I want to belong. There’s so much in the world that’s simple and pleasant. It’s not all fighting and renunciation. It is—with you.”
“What have I ever renounced?”
“Oh, you’ll never renounce anything! You’d walk over corpses for what you want. But it’s what you’ve renounced by never wanting it.”
“That’s because you can’t want both.”
“Both what?”
“Look, Peter. I’ve never told you any of those things about me. What makes you see them? I’ve never asked you to make a choice between me and anything else. What makes you feel that there is a choice involved? What makes you uncomfortable when you feel that—since you’re so sure I’m wrong?”
“I ... I don’t know.” He added: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” And then he asked suddenly:
“Howard, why do you hate me?”
“I don’t hate you.”
“Well, that’s it! Why don’t you hate me at least?”
“Why should I?”
“Just to give me something. I know you can’t like me. You can’t like anybody. So it would be kinder to acknowledge people’s existence by hating them.”
“I’m not kind, Peter.”
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150918/third-times-the-charm-federal-appeals-court-voids-provisions-of-dc-gun-control-in-heller-iii
DC Circuit Court of Appeals made DC gun registration laws less bad
your blog needs an app so when i want to comment things i just switch to an app
U need a "weekly open thread" or something bro.
Convos can take longer than one week.
shouldn't do it on a timer, should make different threads for actual reasons
what's so great about apps?
Open Oxford didn't take criticism well.
there wasn't even some lone individual who separated from the mob and was like "oh, fuck you guys, this other side is better". the best comments were all people who already knew about FI.
an Open Oxford commenter posted a joke death threat against an FI member (not Elliot) today. it has 3 likes.
they don't like thinking about substance ever though.
another posted a vague non-force threat against the same person, which prompted the joke death threat. he was asked to explain what he meant, and wouldn't.
what's the right word for a non-force threat?
should you actually try normie dating?
if you don't try at least 500 dates, how would you know if it's bad? don't judge what you didn't experience!
why 500 instead of 400 or 999999?
don't worry they'll tire themselves out soon
> don't worry they'll tire themselves out soon
are you insultingly comparing some commenters to children?
maybe he's trying to provoke more comments :)
"no we won't. i'll show you. i'll post 500 comments!"
What is an abstract problem? I was in the "genetic truths" thread on FI, and I never quite understood what Elliot meant when he was talking about mind-independent questions/problems. What sort of physical situation constitutes such a question/problem?
2+2 is an abstract problem. it deals in abstractions, it's not directly connected to people, and it doesn't directly have to do with a human choice.
you can only be coerced over problems involving human choices. but you can consider other problems as sorta abstract puzzles for fun.
OK, that's really vague when you say that it deals in abstractions. And then you say what it isn't connected to (people, human choice). That doesn't tell me what it *is*. And I don't care about coercion. That's a feature of human problems. I realize that. To give you an idea of what sort of answer I'm looking for, I'll post my best guess so far: A human problem consists of conflicting ideas. An abstract problem is more general, consisting of conflicting physical processes (a fly's genes are in a sort of conflict with frog genes).
The point was basically to make up terms for:
- problems that can coerce a person
- problems that can't
so if you don't care about coercion, you aren't thinking about the problem the terminology was intended to solve, so you won't get it.
Maybe this will help: a problem is kinda like anything that could be a question.
But you can still ask what sort of situation this thing that can't coerce you *is*. And yes, that does help. So a non-human problem is something that could become a human problem, if we were curious about it?
If you're curious that's vague. I think what you have in mind is some different but related/similar problems. E.g. "I want to know the answer to 2+2 in the next 30 seconds". or "2+2 seems interesting, i want to schedule some time to work on that going forward"
you should have (at least one level of) sub-threads so we can actually answer those questions in a reasonably formatted way. or make separate open posts for each Q.
What about spam?
Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans and spam
Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans and spam
omg you spammed the same message. lulie should i ban him?
also live update without refreshing the page would be awesome
> you should have (at least one level of) sub-threads so we can actually answer those questions in a reasonably formatted way. or make separate open posts for each Q.
don't think it's necessary really. don't want more complexity. facebook has something kinda like that with very limited nesting and it's awful.
> also live update without refreshing the page would be awesome
down with complexity!!!
this would be better if there were threads and nesting and stuff. like a forum
i can't follow this at all
what, like reddit or phpbb? those suck ass
> i can't follow this at all
maybe you're stupid
if someone is too stupid to use quoting to make their post coherent, ignore them. welcome to free speech. ppl can post badly and confusingly.
this is how IM works. can you guys follow IM or not?
I like what post #7 said
(also I think posts should have numbers)
wtf, counting is hard. quote better
(or maybe not idk but it's an idea)
trump guy on Kelly show: one of the reasons we know Obama IS an American citizen is cuz Trump got Obama to produce birth certificate
comments have ID numbers if you look at the permalink. they also have permalinks. i don't really think they need additional numbers.
you can give your post a number in the title or author field if you want to. good enough?
IMs don't have numbers.
i'm not 100% against the idea tho. i do see how visible numbers could provide some shorthand to refer to a comment
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/09/19/fncs-kelly-accuses-trump-supporter-of-being-uncomfortable-about-muslim-question/
>> i can't follow this at all
> maybe you're stupid
maybe people should quote more
and maybe posts should be numbered or something, so i can find my place again
just click the permalink on the last comment you read to save your place
>IMs don't have numbers.
it's hard to keep track of your place in busy IM chatrooms too
i don't see any benefit of this format over just using IM or chatrooms
this is public
this is anonymous and has permanent public record – any content can be linked, quoted, etc. and anyone can participate.
People who want numbers and read tracking and other fancy things can use Greasemonkey to add it themselves anyway
Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans and spam
yeah if people would use browser extensions or other software to make the experience better, i'd kinda prefer that to me adding features
one thing is it might be nice if it was easier for the Author field to auto-fill with a moniker tho. optionally. not sure. but ppl posting as different anonymous's would be easier to follow. a browser extension can probably handle that ez anyway.
> Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans and spam
see this is kinda why i thot minor spam on FB would be fine. it's so like harmless, u can just scroll past it, who cares
i don't think a little bit of spamming like destroys forums or whatever. who cares.
Elliot says OO are faggots!!!!
Elliot says OO are faggots!!!!
Elliot says OO are faggots!!!!
hey, OO misquoted Elliot first!
He pressed a button for his secretary. The secretary entered uncertainly, looking unhappy; he was a young man, no longer too young, with a bloodless face and the well-bred manner of genteel poverty.
"Did you get me an appointment with Francisco d'Anconia?" snapped Taggart.
"No, sir."
"But, God damn it, I told you to call the—"
"I wasn't able to, sir. I have tried."
"Well, try again."
"I mean I wasn't able to obtain the appointment, Mr. Taggart."
"Why not?"
"He declined it."
"You mean he refused to see me?"
"Yes, sir, that is what I mean."
"He wouldn't see me?"
"No, sir, he wouldn't."
"Did you speak to him in person?"
"No, sir, I spoke to his secretary."
"What did he tell you? Just what did he say?" The young man hesitated and looked more unhappy. "What did he say?"
"He said that Senior d'Anconia said that you bore him, Mr. Taggart."
I shall do it by means of two scenes reproduced below: one is a scene from The Fountainhead, as it stands in the novel—the other is the same scene, as I rewrote it for the purpose of this demonstration. Both versions present only the bare skeleton of the scene, only the dialogue, omitting the descriptive passages. It will be sufficient to illustrate the process. It is the first scene in which Howard Roark and Peter Keating appear together. It takes place on the evening of the day when Roark was expelled from college and Keating graduated with high honors. The action of the scene consists of one young man asking the advice of another about a professional choice he has to make. But what kind of young men are they? What are their attitudes, premises and motives? Observe what one can learn from a single scene and how much your, the reader’s, mind registers automatically. Here is the scene as originally written, as it stands in the novel:“Congratulations, Peter,” said Roark. “Oh . . . Oh, thanks . . . I mean . . . do you know or . . . Has mother been telling you?” “She has.” “She shouldn’t have!” “Why not?” “Look, Howard, you know that I’m terribly sorry about your being . . .” “Forget it.” “I . . . there’s something I want to speak to you about, Howard, to ask your advice. Mind if I sit down?” “What is it?” “You won’t think that it’s awful of me to be asking about my business, when you’ve just been . . . ?” “I said forget about that. What is it?” “You know, I’ve often thought that you’re crazy. But I know that you know many things about it—architecture, I mean—which those fools never knew. And I know that you love it as they never will.” “Well?” “Well, I don’t know why I should come to you, but—Howard, I’ve never said it before, but you see, I’d rather have your opinion on things than the Dean’s— I’d probably follow the Dean’s, but it’s just that yours means more to me myself, I don’t know why. I don’t know why I’m saying this, either.” “Come on, you’re not being afraid of me, are you? What do you want to ask about?” “It’s about my scholarship. The Paris prize I got.” “Yes?” “It’s for four years. But, on the other hand, Guy Francon offered me a job with him some time ago. Today he said it’s still open. And I don’t know which to take.” “If you want my advice, Peter, you’ve made a mistake already. By asking me. By asking anyone. Never ask people. Not about your work. Don’t you know what you want? How can you stand it, not to know?” “You see, that’s what I admire about you, Howard. You always know.” “Drop the compliments.” “But I mean it. How do you always manage to decide?” “How can you let others decide for you?”
This was the scene as it stands in the novel. Now here is the same scene, rewritten: “Congratulations, Peter,” said Roark. “Oh . . . Oh, thanks . . . I mean . . . do you know or . . . Has mother been telling you?” “She has.” “She shouldn’t have!” “Oh well, I didn’t mind it.” “Look, Howard, you know that I’m terribly sorry about your being expelled.” “Thank you, Peter.” “I . . . there’s something I want to speak to you about, Howard, to ask your advice. Mind if I sit down?” “Go right ahead. I’ll be glad to help you, if I can.” “You won’t think that it’s awful of me to be asking about my business, when you’ve just been expelled?” “No. But it’s nice of you to say that, Peter. I appreciate it.” “You know, I’ve often thought that you’re crazy.” “Why?” “Well, the kind of ideas you’ve got about architecture—there’s nobody that’s ever agreed with you, nobody of importance, not the Dean, not any of the professors . . . and they know their business. They’re always right. I don’t know why I should come to you.” “Well, there are many different opinions in the world. What did you want to ask me?” “It’s about my scholarship. The Paris prize I got.” “Personally, I wouldn’t like it. But I know it’s important to you.” “It’s for four years. But, on the other hand, Guy Francon offered me a job with him some time ago. Today he said it’s still open. And I don’t know which to take.” “If you want my advice, Peter, take the job with Guy Francon. I don’t care for his work, but he’s a very prominent architect and you’ll learn how to build.” “You see, that’s what I admire about you, Howard. You always know how to decide.” “I try my best.” “How do you do it?” “I guess I just do it.” “But you see, I’m not sure, Howard. I’m never sure of myself. You always are.” “Oh, I wouldn’t say that. But I guess I’m sure about my work.”
They perish gradually, giving up, extinguishing their minds before they have a chance to grasp the nature of the evil they are facing. In lonely agony, they go from confident eagerness to bewilderment to indignation to resignation—to obscurity. And while their elders putter about, conserving redwood forests and building sanctuaries for mallard ducks, nobody notices those youths as they drop out of sight one by one, like sparks vanishing in limitless black space; nobody builds sanctuaries for the best of the human species.
An intelligent man will reject such a book with contemptuous indignation, refusing to waste his time on untangling what he perceives to be gibberish—which is part of the book’s technique: the man able to refute its arguments will not (unless he has the endurance of an elephant and the patience of a martyr).
The excuse, given in all such cases, is that the “compromise” is only temporary and that one will reclaim one’s integrity at some indeterminate future date. But one cannot correct a husband’s or wife’s irrationality by giving in to it and encouraging it to grow. One cannot achieve the victory of one’s ideas by helping to propagate their opposite. One cannot offer a literary masterpiece, “when one has become rich and famous,” to a following one has acquired by writing trash. If one found it difficult to maintain one’s loyalty to one’s own convictions at the start, a succession of betrayals—which helped to augment the power of the evil one lacked the courage to fight—will not make it easier at a later date, but will make it virtually impossible.
“You know, Ellsworth, you’ve said a sentence there you’d never use in your column.”
“Did I? Undoubtedly. I can say a great many things to you that I’d never use in my column. Which one?”
“Every loneliness is a pinnacle.”
“That? Yes, quite right. I wouldn’t. You’re welcome to it—though it’s not too good. Fairly crude. I’ll give you better ones some day, if you wish. Sorry, however, that that’s all you picked out of my little speech.”
“What did you want me to pick?”
“Well, my two explanations, for instance. There’s an interesting question there. What is kinder—to believe the best of people and burden them with a nobility beyond their endurance—or to see them as they are, and accept it because it makes them comfortable? Kindness being more important than justice, of course.”
She looked at his pupils, at the three pliant, agile figures half stretched on canvas chairs in poses of relaxed contentment, dressed in slacks, windbreakers and open-collared shirts: John Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, Ragnar Danneskjold.
"Don't be astonished, Miss Taggart," said Dr. Akston, smiling, "and don't make the mistake of thinking that these three pupils of mine are some sort of superhuman creatures. They're something much greater and more astounding than that: they're normal men—a thing the world has never seen—and their feat is that they managed to survive as such. It does take an exceptional mind and a still more exceptional integrity to remain untouched by the brain-destroying influences of the world's doctrines, the accumulated evil of centuries—to remain human, since the human is the rational."
"If you want to know the one reason that's taking me back, I'll tell you; I cannot bring myself to abandon to destruction all the greatness of the world, all that which was mine and yours, which was made by us and is still ours by right—because I cannot believe that men can refuse to see, that they can remain blind and deaf to us forever, when the truth is ours and their lives depend on accepting it. They still love their lives—and that is the uncorrupted remnant of their minds. So long as men desire to live, I cannot lose my battle."
"Do they?" said Hugh Akston softly. "Do they desire it? No, don't answer me now. I know that the answer was the hardest thing for any of us to grasp and to accept. Just take that question back with you, as the last premise left for you to check."
what's the problem with forums? i like things like nesting, and being able to mark individual messages or threads as read. instead of just having to scroll through & go through everything in order.
i like being able to pick & choose topics, and see all the responses to one topic grouped together. it makes it easier to organize my reading.
do all the existing forum things suck? i don't remember them be so terrible when i used to use them.
i also like being able to easily see responses to things that i say, without having to scroll through everything.
i think there are a lot of benefits to a forum type environment
then make an awesome free speech FI forum, bro
>then make an awesome free speech FI forum, bro
don't enforce your heteronormative cis gendered stereotypes on me
fake shitlibs are way more enjoyable than real ones
FI FB group???
you make FI FB group, i'll join i guess. sounds so annoying
- Elliot
i made 2 subreddits btw
https://www.reddit.com/r/fallibleideas
https://www.reddit.com/r/curi
i like features like ez anon posting and not being subject to a moderator team like the ones at reddit, FB, twitter, ask.fm
they are often awful, e.g. twitter banned heartiste and has banned climate deniers, ask.fm rules ban like trolling and offensive comments and crap
i tried to make a forum, but i haven't figured out how it works yet.
i also think maybe i should have used a different forum website. i don't really know the differences.
http://fallibleideas.freeforums.net
i've used freeforums before (http://tkok.freeforums.org/portal.php) and found it's often slow to load, has ads, generally wasn't impressed
the admin UI at free forums is really cumbersome, annoying, badly designed
i wouldn't recommend freeforums over the subreddit i think. do you see advantages for it?
i don't like how reddit has voting
it's harder to find new posts in a thread on reddit than on a linear discussion like here
challenge time:
post great quotes by females that aren't Ayn Rand or Ann Coulter
"Socialists don't like ordinary people choosing, for they might not choose Socialism." -- Margaret Thatcher
10 more
bros complaining about details and notifications and it being hard to follow and blah blah blah: if u want proper discussion, go use FI list? we already have the fully functional good version of discussion.
>i wouldn't recommend freeforums over the subreddit i think. do you see advantages for it?
reddit won't let you comment on stuff more than a year old. does anyone know if this is reddit wide, or if you can change it on different subreddits?
i don't like the way reddit organizes threads. forums aren't perfect, but i think they might be better. categorizing stuff seems to add some value. or do you think i am wrong?
> reddit won't let you comment on stuff more than a year old.
wow i've never heard of that. that's awful. just googled up a random reddit thread over a year old, could not reply.
i don't like subforum categories (e.g. TCS, ARR, epistemology, Oism) unless you have tons of posting activity. more than FI list has. u don't wanna split ppl up without PLENTY of ppl.
and threads often change topics midway, or involve multiple topics.
lots of good posts won't categorize clearly. a post could easily be about parenting with Oism and CR stuff.
at the bottom of the recent comments page, there is now a link to show ALL comments. and the preview text for comments is longer
Daniel Greenfield ?@Sultanknish 15s15 seconds ago
White Leftist Explains to Black Man that Black-on-Black Crime Doesn't Exist | Frontpage Mag http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260175/white-leftist-explains-black-man-black-black-crime-daniel-greenfield#.Vf4f02hzN3Y.twitter …
now automatically creating links in comment text
> Ferner claims that black-on-black crime doesn't exist because most white people are also killed by other white people.
this thread seems pretty LOW ENERGY
https://instagram.com/p/7YV_u_mhWB/
"I am not a technologist, Miss Taggart. I have no talent or taste for dealing with people. I cannot become involved in so-called practical matters."
"That statement was issued in your name."
"I had nothing to do with it!"
"The name of this Institute is your responsibility."
"That's a perfectly unwarranted assumption."
"People think that the honor of your name is the guarantee behind any action of this Institute."
"I can't help what people think—if they think at all!"
"They accepted your statement. It was a lie."
"How can one deal in truth when one deals with the public?"
“I never am really satisfied that I understand anything; because, understand it well as I may, my comprehension can only be an infinitesimal fraction of all I want to understand about the many connections and relations which occur to me, how the matter in question was first thought of or arrived at, etc.”
99
100
C-C-C-COMBO BREAKERRRRRRR
Reddit actually won't let you comment on submissions more than 6 months old. That alone is reason enough not to use it for discussion.
>Reddit actually won't let you comment on submissions more than 6 months old. That alone is reason enough not to use it for discussion.
then use FI email list
You can't even comment, reply-to, or vote on this anymore: https://www.reddit.com/r/fallibleideas/comments/2yxdp1/an_analysis_of_force_and_freedom/
fuck reddit
ok guys, reddit sucks, RIP reddit, do not use
reddit blows bloated dead hobo anus. 4chan's style of forum is far superior.
if someone wants a more serious discussion of a specific topic, they can ask for a thread. this is just a totally open thread. of course it's messy
> you make FI FB group, i'll join i guess. sounds so annoying
>
> - Elliot
https://www.facebook.com/groups/869505849769402/
lol
fuck it was you? :(
don't expect any promotion.
still don't get why you refuse to discuss the sticking point for why you can't be considered for being allowed back on FI list.
i don't really trust facebook permalinks, don't really trust my content to stay there and be public forever.
> fuck it was you? :(
lol. no, it wasn't me making the original comment. loved the irony.
> don't expect any promotion.
not sure what you mean. it's not me who is harmed for lack of FI promotion. it's not my work.
> still don't get why you refuse to discuss the sticking point for why you can't be considered for being allowed back on FI list.
because you are asking me to solve a problem that is not mine to solve. and your concern is dumb. FI list is open. don't post stuff in it that can get you arrested.
i receive blog comment notifications by email. i can manually add some people to be CCed on those if desired.
> lol. no, it wasn't me making the original comment. loved the irony.
but then i didn't agree to join. you tricked me!!
> not sure what you mean. it's not me who is harmed for lack of FI promotion. it's not my work.
the issue is promoting something controlled by someone who may do god knows what with it in the future
> because you are asking me to solve a problem that is not mine to solve. and your concern is dumb. FI list is open. don't post stuff in it that can get you arrested.
you have, in your history, immoral and reprehensible actions. similar actions today could harm people. you refused to discuss your current views. and you didn't even try to make that arg before.
> don't post stuff in it that can get you arrested.
it's possible to be harassed over basically nothing.
Leonor, is it ok with you if i post two of your 2003 IMs indicating the problem?
pm me on facebook what the IMs are first.
>> lol. no, it wasn't me making the original comment. loved the irony.
>
> but then i didn't agree to join. you tricked me!!
You took an offer from an anonymous person. It could have been anyone.
>> not sure what you mean. it's not me who is harmed for lack of FI promotion. it's not my work.
>
> the issue is promoting something controlled by someone who may do god knows what with it in the future
it's not the official FI group. no harm done.
>> don't post stuff in it that can get you arrested.
>
> it's possible to be harassed over basically nothing.
is this a crit of what i said?
there would be harm if i like spent time and people's attention getting them to go to something and then it sucked, was deleted, etc. not a huge deal.
> is this a crit of what i said?
even if people post only reasonable stuff (not stupid posts with stuff that could get you arrested), someone could still cause them trouble
updated this post with some stuff: http://curi.us/1759-first-date-opener
The Fountainhead quote above is so good. I think I'd like the book better with just those two characters because they are the most realistic and the ones who bring the most important contrast and message. Ayn Rand added too many characters in her books and I personally tend to get lost with too much going on.
which Fountainhead quote above? there's multiple.
Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump 47s48 seconds ago
I am attracting the biggest crowds, by far, and the best poll numbers, also by far. Much of the media is totally dishonest. So sad!
Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump 6m6 minutes ago Manhattan, NY
I have been leading big in all polls, with two more today, @nbc and @CNN. The NBC poll is more than double next, at 29%. Fiorina has 11%.
i haven't read all the others yet before i posted. the first one, second comment. lost of good stuff here. how tragic to be a villain don't you think?
oh yeah i love that quote. but i'm glad toohey and dominique and wynand were characters, not just roark and peter.
other characters are good, so you can have scenes like this gem:
He turned to her, leaning on the arm of his chair, half rising, suddenly tense. The thing between them was beginning to take shape. He had a first hint of words that would name it.
“Dominique,” he said, softly, reasonably, “that’s it. Now I know. I know what’s been the matter all the time.”
“Has anything been the matter?”
“Wait. This is terribly important. Dominique, you’ve never said, not once, what you thought. Not about anything. You’ve never expressed a desire. Not of any kind.”
“What’s wrong about that?”
“But it’s ... it’s like death. You’re not real. You’re only a body. Look, Dominique, you don’t know it, I’ll try to explain. You understand what death is? When a body can’t move any more, when it has no ... no will, no meaning. You understand? Nothing. The absolute nothing. Well, your body moves—but that’s all. The other, the thing inside you, your—oh, don’t misunderstand me, I’m not talking religion, but there’s no other word for it, so I’ll say: your soul—your soul doesn’t exist. No will, no meaning. There’s no real you any more.”
“What’s the real me?” she asked. For the first time, she looked attentive; not compassionate; but, at least, attentive.
“What’s the real anyone?” he said, encouraged. “It’s not just the body. It’s ... it’s the soul.”
“What is the soul?”
“It’s—you. The thing inside you.”
“The thing that thinks and values and makes decisions?”
“Yes! Yes, that’s it. And the thing that feels. You’ve—you’ve given it up.”
“So there are two things that one can’t give up: one’s thoughts and one’s desires?”
“Yes! Oh, you do understand! So you see, you’re like a corpse to everybody around you. A kind of walking death. That’s worse than any active crime. It’s ...”
“Negation?”
“Yes. Just blank negation. You’re not here. You’ve never been here. If you’d tell me that the curtains in this room are ghastly and if you’d rip them off and put up some you like—something of you would be real, here, in this room. But you never have. You’ve never told the cook what dessert you liked for dinner. You’re not here, Dominique. You’re not alive. Where’s your I?”
“Where’s yours, Peter?” she asked quietly.
He sat still, his eyes wide. She knew that his thoughts, in this moment, were clear and immediate like visual perception, that the act of thinking was an act of seeing a procession of years behind him.
“It’s not true,” he said at last, his voice hollow. “It’s not true.”
“What is not true?”
“What you said.”
“I’ve said nothing. I asked you a question.”
His eyes were begging her to speak, to deny. She rose, stood before him, and the taut erectness of her body was a sign of life, the life he had missed and begged for, a positive quality of purpose, but the quality of a judge.
“You’re beginning to see, aren’t you, Peter? Shall I make it clearer? You never wanted me to be real. You never wanted anyone to be. But you didn’t want me to show it. You wanted an act to help your act—a beautiful, complicated act, all twists, trimmings and words. All words. You didn’t like what I said about Vincent Knowlton. You liked it when I said the same thing under cover of virtuous sentiments. You didn’t want me to believe. You only wanted me to convince you that I believed. My real soul, Peter? It’s real only when it’s independent—you’ve discovered that, haven’t you? It’s real only when it chooses curtains and desserts—you’re right about that—curtains, desserts and religions, Peter, and the shapes of buildings. But you’ve never wanted that. You wanted a mirror. People want nothing but mirrors around them. To reflect them while they’re reflecting too. You know, like the senseless infinity you get from two mirrors facing each other across a narrow passage. Usually in the more vulgar kind of hotels. Reflections of reflections and echoes of echoes. No beginning and no end. No center and no purpose. I gave you what you wanted. I became what you are, what your friends are, what most of humanity is so busy being—only without the trimmings. I didn’t go around spouting book reviews to hide my emptiness of judgment—I said I had no judgment. I didn’t borrow designs to hide my creative impotence—I created nothing. I didn’t say that equality is a noble conception and unity the chief goal of mankind—I just agreed with everybody. You call it death, Peter? That kind of death—I’ve imposed it on you and on everyone around us. But you-you haven’t done that. People are comfortable with you, they like you, they enjoy your presence. You’ve spared them the blank death. Because you’ve imposed it—on yourself.”
He said nothing. She walked away from him, and sat down again, waiting.
He got up. He made a few steps toward her. He said: “Dominique ...”
Then he was on his knees before her, clutching her, his head buried against her legs.
“Dominique, it’s not true—that I never loved you. I love you, I always have, it was not ... just to show the others—that was not all—I loved you. There were two people—you and another person, a man, who always made me feel the same thing—not fear exactly, but like a wall, a steep wall to climb—like a command to rise—I don’t know where—but a feeling going up—I’ve always hated that man—but you, I wanted you—always—that’s why I married you—when I knew you despised me—so you should have forgiven me that marriage—you shouldn’t have taken your revenge like this—not like this, Dominique—Dominique, I can’t fight back, I——”
“Who is the man you hated, Peter?”
“It doesn’t matter.”
“Who is he?”
“Nobody. I ...”
“Name him.”
“Howard Roark.”
She said nothing for a long time. Then she put her hand on his hair. The gesture had the form of gentleness.
“I never wanted to take a revenge on you, Peter,” she said softly.
“Then—why?”
“I married you for my own reasons. I acted as the world demands one should act. Only I can do nothing halfway. Those who can, have a fissure somewhere inside. Most people have many. They lie to themselves—not to know that. I’ve never lied to myself. So I had to do what you all do—only consistently and completely. I’ve probably destroyed you. If I could care, I’d say I’m sorry. That was not my purpose.”
“Dominique, I love you. But I’m afraid. Because you’ve changed something in me, ever since our wedding, since I said yes to you—even if I were to lose you now, I couldn’t go back to what I was before—you took something I had ...”
“No. I took something you never had. I grant you that’s worse.”
“What?”
“It’s said that the worst thing one can do to a man is to kill his self-respect. But that’s not true. Self-respect is something that can’t be killed. The worst thing is to kill a man’s pretense at it.”
“Dominique, I ... I don’t want to talk.”
She looked down at his face resting against her knees, and he saw pity in her eyes, and for one moment he knew what a dreadful thing true pity is, but he kept no knowledge of it, because he slammed his mind shut before the words in which he was about to preserve it.
She bent down and kissed his forehead. It was the first kiss she had ever given him.
“I don’t want you to suffer, Peter,” she said gently. “This, now, is real—it’s I—it’s my own words—I don’t want you to suffer—I can’t feel anything else—but I feel that much.”
He pressed his lips to her hand.
When he raised his head, she looked at him as if, for a moment, he was her husband. She said: “Peter, if you could hold on to it—to what you are now——”
“I love you,” he said.
They sat silently together for a long time. He felt no strain in the silence.
The telephone rang.
It was not the sound that destroyed the moment; it was the eagerness with which Keating jumped up and ran to answer it. She heard his voice through the open door, a voice indecent in its relief:
“Hello? ... Oh, hello, Ellsworth! ... No, not a thing.... Free as a lark.... Sure, come over, come right over! ... Okey-doke!”
Now some of you might say, as many people do: "Aw, I never think in such abstract terms — I want to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems — what do I need philosophy for?" My answer is: In order to be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems — i.e., in order to be able to live on earth.
You might claim — as most people do — that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure — nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice." You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: "Act first, think afterward"? They got it from John Dewey.
Some people might answer: "Sure, I've said those things at different times, but I don't have to believe that stuff all of the time. It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today." They got it from Hegel. They might say: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: "But can't one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?" They got it from Richard Nixon — who got it from William James.
http://notpickup.com/heres-how-to-meet-super-attractive-women-and-bring-them-to-your-life-youll-kick-yourself/
> Upping your “game” level will take so long, and it won’t be worth it. Lots of pickup attempts, recalibration etc. And still you’ll find that the stuff you did and said that made the magic happen was spontaneous, in the spur of the moment. All of that preparation of learning what to say and what to do un-necessary.
this is a guy selling shortcuts to get laid, and opposing it to PUA where you have to learn stuff which is too much work
Gavin McInnes
Why are you fucking Islamophobes letting a few hundred million bad apples spoil the bunch?
Retweeted by Ann Coulter
here is some reasonably typical intro PUA material:
https://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1db1fl/billys_guide_to_learning_pickup/
this is not creepy, and it's better than avg ppl
As Mises said, the Mount Pelerin Society was a bunch of socialists.
FI is NOT a bunch of socialists.
I wonder what groups have ever had more ACTUALLY NOT SOCIALISTS than FI?
Mom walking down street. Crying kid 10 feet behind. Like age 5. Mom saying, "walk faster"
http://www.businessinsider.com/ann-coulter-donald-trump-election-immigration-2015-9
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 41s41 seconds ago
Walker's exit speech attacks Trump because "Making America Great Again" is such a negative message.
Breitbart News ?@BreitbartNews 36s37 seconds ago
DENIED: Ted Cruz's campaign has waved off Walker's call to drop out. http://trib.al/bjtdqub
> For example, “thought you would” strongly suggests that the recipient outranks the sender, while “let’s discuss” implies the opposite.
this would be easier to read with sender first, recipient second. talking about the relationship of the email recipient to the sender is backwards to the causal process of someone sending a message.
> reddit blows bloated dead hobo anus. 4chan's style of forum is far superior.
8chan allows you to create your own boards, but would make FI known to channers who aren't the safest bunch of people to be known to
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/How_Islamic_Inventors_Did_Not_Change_The_World
[someone on facebook]
Hi guys! I enjoyed reading your conversations here!
Um, looks like you're done discussing PUA, but I guess I just felt like sharing my experience with PUA...because I haven't really had a chance to openly talk about it with people I knew. Thanks in advance for indulging. colonthree emoticon
I consumed TONS of PUA material back in college because I found it fascinating, partially because of the difference in what it SEEMED to be the stereotype (probably because of the language/marketing gimmick-y way they try to hook people with) and what some PUA people were ACTUALLY saying (what Elliot talks about re: learning social stuff + (my interpretation) essentially, what makes you attractive (to ladies, to the point that they might wanna bone you) is confidence/how comfortable you are with yourself. PUAing (or whatever) is just practicing that IRL, and getting closer to the idea of giving no fucks (in a certain way) to GET fucked... aka, being authentic to yourself (and about your attraction to others, instead of being shy or whatever) is hot to the people who would find you hot (and may turn off others, but who cares, because 1. YDGAF because you know you're still awesome 2. you probably wouldn't be compatible anyway).
Or something like that.
I also was interested because I was so socially awkward that I was probably subconsciously hoping to eventually find exercises that would be applicable *generally*, and it was cool to read about experiences of awkward people becoming more confident in themselves.
(I think actually, some of the PUA stuff works for general friendship, but not as much for courtship, as far as ladies applying it anyway. I've gotten a lot less shy over the years by essentially "gaming" (my gut says "ew, gross word," but I think the game aspect of it made it a bit less scary somehow) the people around me for a bit, but the aim was "connection and a fun conversation with strangers" and not bedding them. Not sure why that makes so much more of a difference in grossness to me...though I think my Catholic upbringing likely has a lot to do with my general discomfort with displays of (some) sexuality, (except in the case of Beyonce).
I have some thoughts re: your Objectivism discussion. Sooo... I think I'm one of the sheeple, which I would (re?)frame to be "the people who blindly wrote off Objectivism as [x] because my peer group did that," and those I knew who wrote it off, I think, also did so because of reading about Objectivism online or something.
In other words, I wonder what is the motivation for people to "lie" about Objectivism ... I personally don't think people are really "lying" (which is, by the dictionary, to tell an "intentionally false statement" --they're just propagating, unknowingly, pre-mature conclusions, perhaps to sound smart and avoiding sounding "selfish" (or whatever).
Are there actual "enemies" of objectivism, and what is their aim? And why?
Like · Reply · 3 hrs · Edited
Elliot Temple Everything good has enemies: civilization, America, Jews, cellphones, cars, power plants, TV, vaccines, liberalism, freedom, peace, reason.
If you take the quality of something and multiply by the influence/popularity, you can get a measure that doesn't have a word. We might call it: quality-influentialness. This is important because we don't want to look at raw popularity (never mind if it isn't very good) nor raw quality (never mind if no one has heard of it).
To have enemies due to hatred of the good for being the good, people need to hear about something good, *and* it needs to be high quality. Being more good, and more well known, both matter here.
Objectivism is somewhere around #1 in the world for the most quality-influentialness in a bunch of major intellectual categories of good stuff like moral philosophy, political philosophy and reason. And those come with many sub-categories of varying specificity such as ethics of emergencies, altruism, pragmatism, proper role of government, how to live in an irrational society, compromise, what to think of the moon landing, etc
So, yes, Objectivism has enemies. Lots of people really hate it, because it contradicts their sense of life and their values so much, because they are anti-life hatred-of-the-good-for-being-good types, which is most people today.
And if Objectivism is true, most people have been fucking up their lives really really badly, and need to make big changes. Which is hard to face and usually very unwanted.
And a lot of Objectivism's enemies are the people with some interest in intellectual matters, who have a self-image as these rational open-minded thinkers who consider all the ideas on their topics. But then what are they to do with Objectivism? They can't win the argument and don't want to change. So they do standard stuff you've heard of before: attack straw man, attack misreadings, use tactics to dodge debate, etc, etc. They do this to protect their self-image, and sometimes also their professional reputation.
Like · Reply · 3 mins
Elliot Temple A much more minor issue than Ayn Rand is Ann Coulter. Coulter's not such a big figure, and writes about less important matters, compared to Rand. And yet Coulter has tons of enemies who smear her, make up false fact checks to attack her, etc, etc
I brought up Coulter for a second reason, because I had an experience with her similar to yours with Objectivism. My entire social circle had only bad things to say about her. I had never heard a good word about her from anyone. And I'd seen a few things online saying she's awful. And then I saw her on TV a few times. And I noticed, hey, actually she seems a bit smart. Where did I get the idea she's so bad, exactly? What do I really know? After a while I ended up getting one of her books to try, and it turned out to be great, and I've now changed a bunch of people's minds about her from my social group. And it's interesting to look back, and see how all the things I'd heard were totally false, and it's so important to check things for yourself or you can miss out on gems like Coulter or Rand.
Matjaž Leonardis writes to FB:
> This may be controversial but what is so "significant" about mathematics? Apart from still featuring in school curricula and arithmetic it seems to have like zero effect on human culture?
wow just wow
sometimes ppl still manage to surprise me with how fucking dumb they are
man if they can't see how math has any consequences for anything, what must they think of epistemology which is more nebulous and isn't directly involved with so much technology and trade?
Roark wrote him a long letter: “... Gail, I know. I hoped you could escape it, but since it had to happen, start again from where you are. I know what you’re doing to yourself. You’re not doing it for my sake, it’s not up to me, but if this will help you I want to say that I’m repeating, now, everything I’ve ever said to you. Nothing has changed for me. You’re still what you were. I’m not saying that I forgive you, because there can be no such question between us. But if you can’t forgive yourself, will you let me do it? Let me say that it doesn’t matter, it’s not the final verdict on you. Give me the right to let you forget it. Go on just on my faith until you’ve recovered. I know it’s something no man can do for another, but if I am what I’ve been to you, you’ll accept it. Call it a blood transfusion. You need it. Take it. It’s harder than fighting that strike. Do it for my sake, if that will help you. But do it. Come back. There will be another chance. What you think you’ve lost can neither be lost nor found. Don’t let it go.”
The letter came back to Roark, unopened.
http://honoranddaring.com/the-campaign-to-mainstream-pedophilia-has-begun/
Elliot Temple she told the libertarians we can talk about stopping regulating drugs after we get rid of the nanny state that makes everyone pay money for govt provided drug treatment. doesn't she have a point?
Like · Reply · 8 mins
Elliot Temple
Elliot Temple in the US, today, Christians are much better than atheists in general. it's a better community with better values and smarter people. there are reasons for this, like the source of the bulk of the atheist community is not smart rational people with better arguments about theism. the source is people who dislike Christian values (especially morality stuff) and turn against it.
even many Objectivists, like Peikoff, are way way way too lefty, due to this very issue: they are too hostile to religion, and it gets them on the wrong side of lots of stuff.
the bulk of the non-religious people are not more rational than the Christians. it's a big mistake to side against the Christians in a conflict that is actually about something else (values, not intellectual integrity. the atheist left doesn't have intellectual integrity, what they have are anti-Christian values. in other words, they are opposed to tons of the values that built Western civilization)
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Elliot Temple
Elliot Temple I think Ann generally favors a small govt. no doubt she doesn't go as far as me. she's not perfect on every issue. i don't know the details of what she wants government to do with marriage.
totally separating government from marriage is actually extremely hard without first changing to a nightwatchman state with totally open borders. cuz for example marriage is used as a way to bring someone in and get them citizenship. that actually works sorta ok. i don't know a simple change to that system so it has nothing to do with marriage, that'll work about the same as now without increasing abuse.
Like · Reply · 3 mins
Elliot Temple
Elliot Temple Ann is one of the best living scholars, debaters, logical thinkers, arguers. She usually argues more specific topics than a philosopher like Rand, and completely kicks ass when doing so, which is really nice and agreeable.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Elliot Temple
Elliot Temple it's notable, btw, that Ann is unmarried. and one time i was like "you know, she acts and writes like an atheist in a ton of ways. i sorta wonder if she doesn't even go to church". and my friend was like "no way, she must go to church!"
so i googled it and i couldn't find any solid information that she attends church. i did find an article alleging to have contacted some church she said she went to a bunch and the minister there didn't know her. something like that. no idea if that was true. but, yeah, no good info she actually is a churchgoer.
that last message is all about Ann Coulter, defending her in a FB arg
"Do you think that it's any better in the West?"
"No. I don't."
"Then why are you going there?"
"Because I haven't tried it before. That's all there is left to try. It's somewhere to go. Just to keep moving . . . You know," he added suddenly, "I don't think it will be any use. But there's nothing to do in the East except sit under some hedge and wait to die. I don't think I'd mind it much now, the dying. I know it would be a lot easier. Only I think that it's a sin to sit down and let your life go, without making a try for it."
She thought suddenly of those modern college-infected parasites who assumed a sickening air of moral self-righteousness whenever they uttered the standard bromides about their concern for the welfare of others. The tramp's last sentence was one of the most profoundly moral statements she had ever heard; but the man did not know it; he had said it in his impassive, extinguished voice, simply, dryly, as a matter of fact.
> I think that it's a sin to sit down and let your life go, without making a try for it.
I agree. But I tend to envision my future as an old person dying and thinking "I RUINED IT!" lol
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260204/iran-were-taking-our-own-samples-and-giving-them-daniel-greenfield
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 6m6 minutes ago
iCarly says kids born in FOREIGN countries should be able to become citizens after coming illegally. http://bit.ly/1V8Sm5n
> Elliot Temple in the US, today, Christians are much better than atheists in general. it's a better community with better values and smarter people. there are reasons for this, like the source of the bulk of the atheist community is not smart rational people with better arguments about theism. the source is people who dislike Christian values (especially morality stuff) and turn against it.
yes! and not only in the us, everywhere. it's amorality that atheists are attracted to. and looking "intelligent" to others because they don't believe in God. and they make a caricature of God to be as silly as possible to dismiss the concept quickly.
the way i swindled sex with my sister
based on the true story as told by Elliot Temple aka curi
the way she looked at me ever since she was born told me that i had to be with dat ass. i decided that i would have to have sex with her one day but i knew she wouldn't let me so i had to take up a new identity as A.J.
i couldn't be next to my sister. it hurt me too much to know that i couldn't be with her. the only time i could spend with her was at night when i couldn't see her beauty. the only thing that kept me from killing my self was the ability to masturbate to the pictures of her we had from the time we went to the beach.
i realized shortly how awful my A.J idea was so i switched to the good ol' date rape. my sister told me she was going to a night club so i thought it would be the perfect time to meet her as A.J then roofie her so i could stop masturbating and start sexterating her. it was perfect. [at this point Elliot hung up on the interview team for an unknown reason. the whereabouts of Elliot are unknown.]
my sister is very hot for me but i always told her no. i didn't want to be a bad person.
but one day, she took off her bra and i couldn't resist.
i'm sorry, God. but it was worth it :D
she has the best tits and i love her smile
the time mom joined us was extra fun with the hot cosby
also fuck Elliot
really the dudes a cunt
also this story "my sister is very hot for me but i always told her no. i didn't want to be a bad person.
but one day, she took off her bra and i couldn't resist.
i'm sorry, God. but it was worth it :D
she has the best tits and i love her smile
the time mom joined us was extra fun with the hot cosby" had nothing to do with my other comments on how much of a cunt bitch elliot is
also another note on
"my sister is very hot for me but i always told her no. i didn't want to be a bad person.
but one day, she took off her bra and i couldn't resist.
i'm sorry, God. but it was worth it :D
she has the best tits and i love her smile
the time mom joined us was extra fun with the hot cosby"
who the fuck would have a smiley face?
> who the fuck would have a smiley face?
a happy person
also ABOUT ELLIOT did you know hes a fucking loud eater eating out of COOKING BOWLS WITH A FORK? hes a really big asshole trying to infect other people
WELL FUCK YOU TO ELLIOT
did you know elliot temple is such a narcissistic cunt he looked himself up?
#thank god that nigger is going out of office soon. opinions?
you mean sand nigger?
fuck obama
dont care what you call him as long as that sand nigger faggot is going out of office
So, Trump or Cruz?
Apple iPhone 6S pre-orders up more than 30% at T-Mobile
times are stored internally as UTC.
they were being converted to pacific by subtracting 8 hours.
daylight savings time is now approximated using hardcoded dates for start/end, rather than a big lookup table that varies for each year.
lol.
New Official Blog Rule
OK guys new rule:
If you are a member of the Open Oxford Facebook group, and you agree with their rules restricting quoting public statements, and you don't want people to have free speech here, then you are not allowed to read this blog.
Please respect the rules. Thanks!
(What? Why is this rule any less legitimate than their rules?)
Elliot can't argue for shit
You're a hypocrite, therefore your rule is invalid. They aren't, so theirs isn't.
Hannah Cronin writes to OO FB:
> If I knew it was acceptable for people to start posting my comments elsewhere, without my consent, and with my name attached, I would genuinely stop commenting and leave the group. I know other people already have, and no doubt there will be more. Would definitely support the second option, Jacob (as you probably already know all too well!).
What are they so scared of?
New Rule
Some OO members are not following the blog rules.
Just to make things extra clear I'm making a new rule:
The following OO members are not allowed to read this blog. This is not a joke like they seem to think. They are banned from reading or posting here.
Ban list: Jacob, Hannah, James, Kuhan.
Not being listed here does not mean you're allowed to read the blog, see the rule prior rule a few comments above. This is just to create total clarity in a few cases.
Elliot still can't argue for shit
>Elliot's response to a rule he doesn't like is to create a rule.
It has been explained why your rule has no basis when the one on OO does.
James you're banned, go away and stop posting
> "What did he tell you? Just what did he say?" The young man hesitated and looked more unhappy. "What did he say?"
>
> "He said that Senior d'Anconia said that you bore him, [James]."
On Jacob Williams
He really is a beautiful boy, and I am driven by lust as much as I am by principle in these instances. I want him to fear me, to loathe me... to want me.
Matthew Hull wrote to OO FB:
> Innocent people can get in contact with Jacob Williams and ask nicely for readmission, prove that they are genuine etc. Perhaps make a group for pending readmissions. Is this workable?
retard, you can't really prove that.
and we could easily get some real people who have never said a word on OO to share the content.
Further warning
I would ask once again that those memebers of the OO forum explicitly banned refrain from visiting this page and abusing the comment box. I mean it.
What are you going to do?
Patrick Mills
> To Elliot: if you repost any of my stuff without permission and out of context I could in theory sue you you know that right?
lol
What am I going to do?
Blast Papa Roach and crywank, that's what.
FYI there is currently no identity verification in blog comments.
The post stating:
> I would ask once again that those memebers of the OO forum explicitly banned refrain from visiting this page and abusing the comment box. I mean it.
by "Elliot Temple"
is impersonation by someone else. Some other posts have also been impersonation.
Was it Justin?
Jacob Williams
>To those of you who are following this thread and re-posting comments: by remaining members of this group you are party to an IMPLICIT CONTRACT in which you agree to obey the rules in return for permission to remain a member. This group is ultimately the property of its members and admins and it is our right to impose conditions on membership. Why is that so difficult to understand? If you consistently believed in the philosophy you espouse you wouldn't be doing this.
This is actually a fair point. Shouldn't we respect their right to their own property?
(guy impersonating me, talking about respect)
It is Justin.
If they want a private group, they can make one. If they want a public group and unlimited obedience, too bad. If they want contradictions, too bad. It's not our job to help them fake reality.
"unlimited obedience"
we know you had a hard childhood, but some of us grew out of the rebellious phase
Elliot Temple
Curi:
>(guy impersonating me, talking about respect)
This guy is impersonating me. I do actually think we're being irrational here.
Last Resort
Just wrote this song inspired by recent events, thought you guys might appreciate the lyrics:
ut my life into pieces
This is my last resort,
Suffocation, no breathing
Don't give a fuck if I cut my arm bleeding
This is my last resort,
Cut my life into pieces
I've reached my last resort,
Suffocation, no breathing
Don't give a fuck if I cut my arm bleeding
Do you even care if I die bleeding?
Would it be wrong, would it be right?
If I took my life tonight,
Chances are that I might
Mutilation out of sight
And I'm contemplating suicide
'Cause I'm losing my sight, losing my mind
Wish somebody would tell me I'm fine
Losing my sight, losing my mind
Wish somebody would tell me I'm fine
I never realized I was spread too thin
'Til it was too late and I was empty within
Hungry, feeding on chaos and living in sin
Downward spiral, where do I begin?
It all started when I lost my mother
No love for myself and no love for another
Searching to find a love upon a higher level
Finding nothing but questions and devils
'Cause I'm losing my sight, losing my mind
Wish somebody would tell me I'm fine
Losing my sight, losing my mind
Wish somebody would tell me I'm fine
Nothing's alright, nothing is fine
I'm running and I'm crying
I'm crying [4x]
I can't go on living this way
Cut my life into pieces
This is my last resort,
Suffocation, no breathing
Don't give a fuck if I cut my arm bleeding
Would it be wrong, would it be right?
If I took my life tonight,
Chances are that I might
Mutilation out of sight
And I'm contemplating suicide
'Cause I'm losing my sight, losing my mind
Wish somebody would tell me I'm fine
Losing my sight, losing my mind
Wish somebody would tell me I'm fine
Nothing's alright, nothing is fine
I'm running and I'm crying
I can't go on living this way
Can't go on, living this way, nothing's alright
Reason and contradictions
Ok, I've changed my mind. Their policy is irrational and a contradiction but so are lots of people's free choices. If we continue to break their rules whilst remaining members of OO we're breaking a contract with the people who own the group.
"A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of the owner."
So let's stop this.
No, you are impersonating me. You are trying to shift the blame away from yourself.
These people cannot expect this rule to be upheld. They are banned from this blog.
You are impersonating me, whoever you even are. You're denying reason and are heading for destruction. If a man leaves his house unguarded does that permit you steal his property? Use your reason.
I am a faggot
As above.
Do not abuse good philosophy by making cheap talking points. Jacob, Hannah, James, Kuhan and Robert are banned from this blog.
Impersonation of me is now fixed.
http://curi.us/1790-blog-comment-impersonation
Sorry for the errors a few people got when posting comments. That was a bug.
If you lost your comment text and want it, email me and I can probably get it back for you from some email notifications about blog activity.
What's your endgame?
I'd like to, genuinely, know why you feel it is important to repost people's comments on your blog. I also wonder what your endgame is. Are you going to repost comments in OO ad infinitum?
I don't know who is reposting all this stuff.
Stop impersonating me. How have you gained control over this blog?
Seriously what the FUCK. How did this impersonator manage to make it so that my comments are now labelled 'anonymous impersonator'? This is CLEARLY an initiation of force and I am not going to stand for it. Everyone should stop posting until this is fixed. I repeat, STOP POSTING. This blog has been hijacked.
lol nice one
i meant nice one to the guy who used the name "Elliot Temp?e"
I don't know who you are but this is not funny. Give me my blog back, you faggot.
Lulie called me a faggot after we fornicated :'(
Hmm. Lulie does like to use that word...
...and it's true...
...I am a faggot
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-23.html
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-23.html
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-23.html
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-23.html
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-23.html
Hannah Cronin:
> Ban all of the people in Elliot's little Rand-worshipping clique?
this is the bitch some OO ppl are trying to nominate for a new admin
Elliot you're such a fuccb0i
Lulie Tannett threatened to report me to the police for having inadequate penile girth. What should I do?
Hannah Cronin:
> I mean, no one is now going to cross post any comments under their own name now. The only realistic option is to either let it continue (and force a lot of people into leaving), or ban the entire group. I'm more concerned about the privacy of actual contributers to this group who post in good faith, than randomers in Canada being not able to spy on our group.
Hannah trying to dox us by outing our country. Think they'll ban her?
Ben Evans to OO FB:
> I do think there's something suspect about a "guilt by association" means to banning people. But it people are genuinely afraid of posting here because of this objectivist gang, then clearly something needs to be done.
One solution could be to have a mass ban of likely sock puppets/the Objectivist gang - followed by controlled re admittance, with the blog being checked to ensure that newly readmitted people weren't posting other peoples comments online again.
>
> On the other hand it might well be that us entering paroxysms of anguish about this issue is counterproductive. Clearly the Objectivists are loving it, and like a child seeking attention, respond to punishment/chastisement with further bad behavior. By merely ignoring them they might well just go away/lose interest over time.
Note the ageism.
Rachel Dlugatch to OO FB:
> I'm sure they're laughing at how they're destroying the group as well.
Wasn't that why she joined the group in the first place?
Lulieta
anyone got any nudies?
> entering paroxysms of anguish
You can tell somebody went to Oxford.
Nebojša Jovanovi?:
> This is the most hilarious fucking thing I've read this week. Someone actually bothered to copy-paste comments on a blog and mock people from a Facebook group? Hey assholes, maybe if you spent less time jerking each other off and more time not being putrid oxygen thieves you wouldn't collectively be made fun of by almost everyone around you.
note the shaming of people who don't do the socially-approved lifestyle of having a wife/girlfriend to fuck instead of masturbating. to get a wife/girlfriend typically requires making tons of concessions to convention to please her. this comment is strong pressure to be conventional, it's an attack on thinking and living outside the box.
> Wasn't that why she joined the group in the first place?
Explain?
Verily did the entirety of their person convulse with sorrow
You people are pathetic. I'd laugh if you didn't excuse sexual assault by blaming it on the victim.
Women need to learn to say NO better. This is really important. By fighting against that point, you are helping to cause more women to go through bad experiences like hers. (Which are frequently not rapes – the guy would stop if she clearly said no. But she scares herself into passivity. The guy in these sorta cases is not 100% blameless, but he's not a rapist either.)
Like I thought - you people excuse sexual assault.
It's rape if she doesn't want it. If you're not capable of reading signs that another person is uncomfortable or feeling forced you are not responsible enough to be having sex and need help.
From what she said, it sounded like she got involved in a reasonably typical sexual encounter in our society, and handled it very badly. This is a common problem. By yelling at anyone who criticizes these kinds of errors by females, you help suppress the knowledge that could address the problem.
> It's rape if she doesn't want it. If you're not capable of reading signs that another person is uncomfortable or feeling forced you are not responsible enough to be having sex and need help.
Criminalizing ~50% of sexually active men is extremely unreasonable.
So he has no way of telling if he's a rapist or not at the time?
And courts don't either, they just have to guess if she's telling the truth that she didn't want it or not?
That's really really stupid.
> and need help.
Classic shaming tactic and also medicalization of ideas.
Are you a woman by any chance?
>Criminalizing ~50% of sexually active men is extremely unreasonable.
No, it isn't. You teach them not to rape.
Just because historically a high percentage of people used to be murders does not mean we can use that as an excuse to not criminalise murder.
> Criminalizing ~50% of sexually active men is extremely unreasonable.
It would also be criminalizing many sexually active women, unless applied in a sexist manner where only women have to want it.
No doubt it would be.
>So he has no way of telling if he's a rapist or not at the time?
Almost like he should be thinking about what his partner wants, and should be responsible enough to be having sex. That is not a big onus to put on someone.
>Classic shaming tactic and also medicalization of ideas.
Raping someone is not an idea.
>Are you a woman by any chance?
Aren't you the people that say identity is irrelevant, and that it's the idea that counts? You're such obvious hypocrites - it's hilarious.
Women need to learn to deal with culturally-common scenarios, in which the man has no intention of using violence, and the woman miscommunicates about her preferences. This communication problem, where some women are bad at expressing what they want and don't want, is not a matter of rape. Calling it rape is a way to shut down discussion.
It would be nice if men would get better at communicating. But the vast majority of men, while not perfect at communication, also are not violent assaulters. If the woman would speak up clearly, they'd stop. Women need to figure that out and start speaking up, instead of trying to reinterpret their own irresponsibility as being a sexual assault victim.
Laurie Pycroft (who we know from recent OO discussions is literally retarded):
> This is all so silly. I haven't seen a ridiculous brigading clusterfuck like this since, like, 2008.
thanks?
Magically knowing what someone else is thinking when they're deliberately refusing to express themselves is indeed a big onus to put on someone.
You have unreasonable standards.
> Raping someone is not an idea.
Can't you follow conversations?
> Aren't you the people
I'm a person.
Bro, could you use the name Anonymous2? I think you're confusing the newbies.
Demanding that men to read women's minds so that women don't get their preferences violated is contrary to reality and demeans women.
Communication is hard, particularly in emotionally laden situations like a possible sexual encounter when people aren't exactly operating at their rational and communicative best, which is already such a low standard for so many people to begin with,
And women should cry with a shock of outrage and insult at the notion that they're fragile little flowers who need an omniscient man's attention to avoid getting stomped on -- that they lack the capacity to express a stern "no" and have it respected.
I notice the fact that THE FUCKING COURTS would be unable to enforce these feminist rape definitions is ignored.
Reality can be so unhelpful to wrong ideologies.
Question:
Why have you recently started focusing on Open Oxford despite the fact that you clearly think everyone there, bar a certain few, are total morons?
> I notice the fact that THE FUCKING COURTS would be unable to enforce these feminist rape definitions is ignored.
>
> Reality can be so unhelpful to wrong ideologies.
so who are you? you seem kinda awesome! don't want credit?
> Demanding that men to read women's minds so that women don't get their preferences violated is contrary to reality and demeans women.
>
> Communication is hard, particularly in emotionally laden situations like a possible sexual encounter when people aren't exactly operating at their rational and communicative best, which is already such a low standard for so many people to begin with,
>
> And women should cry with a shock of outrage and insult at the notion that they're fragile little flowers who need an omniscient man's attention to avoid getting stomped on -- that they lack the capacity to express a stern "no" and have it respected.
A+++ would read again
Daniel Blaston
> Yes, my solution is to ban people based on suspicion. I think that is clearly the best option here.
these faggots
What is wrong with you
I know you people are autismal failures, but can you honestly not see that not everything has to be logically watertight to be effective in a real-world situation?
Anonymous2
> Bro
You're guessing I'm male because I'm not calling for all straight men to have magical powers, imagining courts to be infallible truth-detectors, can tell the difference between a conversation and rape, and don't have a track record of brushing truth under the carpet when I don't like it?
No dude, I totally call females "bro" (and "dude")
Females can be good enough people to be bros.
Stop being sexist, I don't even care what gender you are as long as you'll date me
>You're guessing I'm male because I'm not calling for all straight men to have magical powers, imagining courts to be infallible truth-detectors, can tell the difference between a conversation and rape, and don't have a track record of brushing truth under the carpet when I don't like it?
Lulie, we are all aware that you have likely been posting on here. It would probably be in your best interests to stop, before you implicate yourself.
> I know you people are autismal failures
ASD-shaming from someone with neurotypical privilege.
Why are OO such bigots?
>Why are OO such bigots?
Assuming I'm from OO
Jacob Williams
> I think we should stop feeding the trolls.
OO literally starts their own threads about us, which get a million comments, then complains there's too much stuff about us on OO
Rachel Dlugatch
> I'm about ready to go myself
(she means quit the group)
well then, at least at the end of the day, we can say we helped make the OO FB group a better place
> No dude, I totally call females "bro" (and "dude")
Did you think I was female?
> Did you think I was female?
I didn't think about it
>OO literally starts their own threads about us, which get a million comments, then complains there's too much stuff about us on OO
Justin, you already got shut down on this.
Also asking you to use Anonymous2 was a joke mocking the ppl getting confused
Putting author in the title field was a joke too ¬¬
> I didn't think about it
What do you think you would have guessed if asked?
> What do you think you would have guessed if asked?
i don't know and i don't think the question works quite like how you want. if i stopped and thought about it much, i'd think of specific individuals it could be, rather than going by like whether i think a girl or guy in general would write stuff like you did.
It's a question that only works somewhere where you don't think of specific individuals.
> don't want credit?
Why should I? Is there a prize?
James Carter
> It's all very well to say what might happen in the long-term, but in the meantime a bunch of extra comments will be posted. That's the point.
fuck long-range thought!!!
> Why should I? Is there a prize?
we could see your name on FI and read those posts preferentially
you could potentially receive invites to private discussions
people could want to talk with you more, try harder
>fuck long-range thought!!!
Justin misses the point again. You do that a lot.
This blog is too spooky. Let me demonstrate why you are spooky using a story.
>Meet cute girl
>end up dating
>she becomes my girlfriend
>one day I post coitally murmur in her ear that she is my property
>she says that she is her own person and can do as she pleases
>I tell her she doesn't understand that there is only me, that I am unique and that she, among other things, is my property
>she tells me I am a male chauvinist pig
>I tell her such concepts are merely spooks
>She looks at me like I'm crazy and gets up to leave and mockingly tells me to have some other girl as property
>She asks who the hell I think I am
>I say that I'm the creative nothing which cannot be named
>she says I'm an asshole
>I say no attributes can properly describe the creative nothing which is the unique one
>she asks me where I got this form
>I tell her I have stated my case on nothing
>she leaves
Daniel Blaston
> there's no slippery slope between "ban people who are deliberately trying to hurt other people" and "ban people for their viewpoints"
Elliot actually requested the people intentionally trying to hurt him and disrupt discussion be banned, and was refused, at the start of all this, in his first thread.
and the doxer, who was deliberately trying to hurt Elliot, was not banned
Robert Boissonneault
> I realise that this is an odd opinion, but it's the smug, malicious way in which they've conducted themselves that bothers me the most.
What they really hate is radiant certainty.
Eleanor Sharman
> Without meaning to be all "First they came for...", this is *exactly* what happened with the liberation groups. Seriously. Can we not just ignore trolls and act as usual? They need food to survive. They will get bored. This is how you deal with children.
They are such ageist bigots.
A demonologist transcended mongolist professor and Geist activist was teaching a class on Hegel, known necromancer.
"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship the end of history and accept that Absolute Idealism is the most highly-evolved sophism to make us feel good about ourselves the continent has ever known, even greater than self-serving petit-bourgeois protestant theology!"
At this moment an uncaring if he was brave because being judged by illusionary social standards was of no importance to him, egoist, unique girl's school teacher who had smoked more than 15000 cigars in Hippel's winebar and understood the spookiness of all ideology and fully supported whatever he felt like stood up and held up "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum".
"I wrote this, innit?"
The arrogant professor smirked quite synthetically and smugly replied "It's not yours at all, fucking egoist, its the stern, reluctant working of reason towards the full realization of itself in perfect freedom."
"Wrong. It's been a few years or something (time is nothing to me) since I, the Unique One, created it. if it was not mine, and idealism, as you say, is not a spook... then Ghost Busters wouldn't have had a happy ending."
>What they really hate is radiant certainty.
You people are so full of yourselves. Do you ever self-doubt?
See, THAT is what they hate most.
>No response to my comments about stirner
I guess this isn't a group that takes ideas seriously.
> >No response to my comments about stirner
this isn't a quote from this page. learn to give sources or quote accurately or something
>See, THAT is what they hate most.
I don't hate radiant certainty. I hate people that think they know what they're talking about and don't, and have absolutely no self-awareness.
In any specific instance, this type of hatred is heavily enmeshed in rationalizations. The most common one is: “I don’t hate him for his intelligence, but for his conceit!” More often than not, if one asks the speaker to name the evidence of the victim’s conceit, he exhausts such generalities as: “He’s insolent ... he’s stubborn ... he’s selfish,” and ends up with some indeterminate accusation which amounts to: “He’s intelligent and he knows it.” Well, why shouldn’t he know it? Blank out. Should he hide it? Blank out. From whom should he hide it? The implicit, but never stated, answer is: “From people like me.”
Did Lulie jump or was she pushed?
> Did Lulie jump or was she pushed?
Onto your penis?
> Onto your penis?
I wish :'(
God, I'm lonely.
>In any specific instance, this type of hatred is heavily enmeshed in rationalizations. The most common one is: “I don’t hate him for his intelligence, but for his conceit!” More often than not, if one asks the speaker to name the evidence of the victim’s conceit, he exhausts such generalities as: “He’s insolent ... he’s stubborn ... he’s selfish,” and ends up with some indeterminate accusation which amounts to: “He’s intelligent and he knows it.” Well, why shouldn’t he know it? Blank out. Should he hide it? Blank out. From whom should he hide it? The implicit, but never stated, answer is: “From people like me.”
That would be great if there were any actual intelligence on display. All you people seem to do is engage in circular logic, appeals to authority and incredulity.
I understand that the lot of you are used to talking to yourselves or people that don't know what they're talking about, but you embarrassed yourselves when pitted against some Oxford students, frankly.
>I understand that the lot of you are used to talking to yourselves or people that don't know what they're talking about, but you embarrassed yourselves when pitted against some Oxford students, frankly.
^this
One day you might look back over these exchanges and I'd love to see how you cringe.
V funny how you're obsessed with ageism and yet engage in really blatant racism and misogyny.
Did you not like being told what to do as a child? Is that where all of this comes from? Have you just not grown out of your rebellious phase yet?
I'm glad you sociopaths are confined to a dark corner of the internet, where no-one takes you seriously.
>Did Lulie jump or was she pushed?
Clearly pushed because of her obvious complicity.
I'm just going to leave this here. Describes TCS perfectly.
http://www.cultwatch.com/howcultswork.html
>Clearly pushed because of her obvious complicity.
complicit in what?
>complicit in what?
People copying comments on here, of course.
In what way was she complicit?
> In what way was she complicit?
The socialist faggots had a vendetta against her after she posted some alt-right stuff, that's all
>The socialist faggots had a vendetta against her after she posted some alt-right stuff, that's all
Lolol. Lulie, we know what you were doing. Stop pretending it was because of your batshit views.
What was she doing in your eyes?
> Lolol. Lulie, we know what you were doing. Stop pretending it was because of your batshit views.
James, what the hell is your problem? Seriously, these faggots.
>James, what the hell is your problem? Seriously, these faggots.
Wrong. Who's got the vendetta now?
I seriously don't know what you think Lulie was doing? Do you think she purposefully invited Elliot to OO in some entryist attempt? I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. She didn't seem to have much time for OO after its creation much except for organizing events for it. She just wanted OO to be successful and advertised it to everyone she knew.
you're v bad at describing your own behaviour m8
I'm not Lulie however I feel as if I'm not going to get any explanation as to what you thought she was doing. Sucks man, I just wanted to know what your actual theory was.
> Wrong. Who's got the vendetta now?
Cronin, Koonhan, Jewgatch, whoever you are, OO's gone to shit because of you.
Nice one Lulie. Good to see you're the racist cunt we always thought you were.
> Nice one Lulie. Good to see you're the racist cunt we always thought you were.
Hardly racist to push the buttons of a delicate petal like you. Riddle me this though: if you're so right on, why did you just call me a cunt, you sexist
>why did you just call me a cunt, you sexist
Learn what sexism is m8.
> Cronin, Koonhan, Jewgatch, whoever you are, OO's gone to shit because of you.
Who's Koonhan? Is he black?
>OO kicks you out and doesn't give a single shit
>Elliot's blog literally only focuses on this
You people crack me up - you're so pathetic it hurts.
Why don't you guys go discuss on OO? Or do you think my forum is better?
>Hardly racist to push the buttons of a delicate petal like you.
no denial as usual - confirmed
> no denial as usual - confirmed
Are you that inured to reason that you can't detect wit and irony?
> Why don't you guys go discuss on OO? Or do you think my forum is better?
James and Cronin clearly have nothing better to do with their time.
>James and Cronin clearly have nothing better to do with their time.
Still wrong m8.
Wait so why did Lulie get kicked out of OO? Fill me in here
I wonder how many of these are Elliot just talking to himself.
I haven't been posting almost anything today. Most of this stuff isn't me
> I wonder how many of these are Elliot just talking to himself.
Reckon at least 40% are David Deutsch
Genuinely curious who's posting here, honestly.
EIliot Temple
You people are such faggots
do you really have nothing better to do with your lives?!
Lu?ie Tanett
I'm such a gaylord
> Genuinely curious who's posting here, honestly.
Smart money's on GAYmes Carter
What even is this thread?
Wow, you guys are obsessed with me.
> What even is this thread?
I know, right? It's like all these Oxford faggots want to start a cyberwar
Justin, your posts are always really obvious m8
I think most of this is 1-3 OO people who kinda like anonymous free speech now that they tried it.
>who kinda like anonymous free speech now that they tried it
>assuming people who don't like anonymous free speech in all places must have just never experienced it before
lol you're so stupid
<b> It's obvious Lulie had everything do to with this! C'mon m8s! </b>
I think I'm so anonymous guys!
they get named and they stop every time
Oxford sucks. God's honest truth. I mean what kind of idiots would pay several thousand pounds to be harassed by creepy megalomanic so called "tutors".
Real idiots that's who.
I assumed it was fairly obvious that it was me. I've just come back home for the night but to make clear the last comment I made was asking you about what you thought Lulie had done. If you want to clear up which messages are mine then you can message me on facebook.
As an aside, I was also the person posted the Stirner jokes.
Not sure who Harry is trying to speak to, but FYI I haven't been doing any of the commenting about Lulie.
>Oxford sucks. God's honest truth. I mean what kind of idiots would pay several thousand pounds to be harassed by creepy megalomanic so called "tutors".
"I don't understand what words mean."
Don't you lie now Elliot Temple. Your name is all over this. You want to fuck Lulie don't you? Admit it. Admit it. Admiiiiiiit iiiiit!
Perhaps this was all a ploy to convince advertisers his site has more than one visitor per year? Did we play right into this?
Probably.
I think I understand why he brainwashes these idiots, too - it's so that it's not instantly obvious whenever he posts. He's got such a distinct brand of nutcasery.
Do you need some help Elliot?
Here at Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute he provide our patients with the best treatment available.
Drop by if you're interested. Or we might drop by with you. It doesn't matter really as long as you get better.
>I think I understand why he brainwashes these idiots, too - it's so that it's not instantly obvious whenever he posts. He's got such a distinct brand of nutcasery.
While I agree you shouldn't imply he's unique. That might get him hard. And we really don't want that.
I want to blow you Elliot. My Love.
>While I agree you shouldn't imply he's unique. That might get him hard. And we really don't want that.
Will his dick come out of the screen and slap me or something?
>Implying I hold me face 1/2 an inch from the screen.
F??????????????????????u???????????????????????????c??????????????????????????k????????????????????????????????i??????????????????????????n???????????????????????????g???????????????????????? ?????????????????????????E???????????????????????????????l?????????????????????????????l???????????????????????i????????????????????????o?????????????????????????????t???????????????????????????.?????????????????????????
Khm. As someone who has had the chance to ... experience the Totality of Elliot's Dick ... may I Suggest you hold your face at least 3 inches from the screen. If you don't want jizz on your face that is ... mmm.
I bet this is the most activity there's ever been on here.
?
My mysql database isn't set up for unicode, bros
Amateur.
Total amateur.
>(This is a free speech zone!)
>(No HTML. Title and Author optional.)
So he wants to pretend this is a free speech zone. Because HTML isn't speech.
And he wants us to help him fake reality.
lol, good one (finally)
Going to do something about it, Smelliot?
no?
You're melting my peaches you twat.
You sound cute, what's your number?
>I think people impersonating me in blog comments is confusing.
It's pretty distasteful you have saved yourself while hanging your friends out to dry. What kind of a person does that?
Remember that -Elliot loonies- next time you defend your Prophet . He could have saved you. He chose not to. Because he's just using you. He doesn't care about you. We would sell you out for 100 extra clicks on his blog. That is the kind of person you're dealing with.
>You sound cute, what's your number?
Does anybody seriously doubt that this guy is a virgin? Would someone who's not even be looking into PUA?
Elliot your blog is total crap. Completely impossible to use. I have to scroll so much my mouse will break.
In your defence I guess you never expected your posts to have more than one comment right? And even that you'd post yourself right?
> Does anybody seriously doubt that this guy is a virgin? Would someone who's not even be looking into PUA?
Stop your bigoted shaming.
>Manipulates women and can't see them as real people.
>Thinks someone who points this out is a bigot.
You're the sort of thing I used to think only existed in parody.
> Because he's just using you. He doesn't care about you. We would sell you out for 100 extra clicks on his blog.
God forbid that someone shouldn't be motivated by altruism.
>God forbid that someone shouldn't be motivated by altruism.
I think the point is that they shouldn't give a shit about him because that's what he does m8, and not some philosophical principle.
You're easy to spot Lulie.
> You're easy to spot Lulie.
Is that a fat joke?
is this an experiment on how "free speech" doesn't work for productive discussion given most ppl have nothing to say and will only post fluff for the sake of having a say?
>is this an experiment on how "free speech" doesn't work for productive discussion given most ppl have nothing to say and will only post fluff for the sake of having a say?
I think it's an experiment on "Elliot tried to start a war with a forum that doesn't give a shit about him, and all it's doing is fucking up his own blog."
Disagreement = war? OO should change its name to CO.
> Is that a fat joke?
dat ass tho
> Disagreement = war? OO should change its name to CO.
Communist Oxford?
>Disagreement = war? OO should change its name to CO.
You still think this is about your batshit opinions, don't you. Wow.
For people that are ~so rational~, you're great at making yourselves victims at every turn, like how no-one takes your philosophy seriously because it's too scary for them to learn the truth :((((( Not like it could be because you haven't got a clue how to put a coherent argument together or anything.
Made me laugh how not a single person could answer those articles you posted on your Yahoo group, and that an 18 year old fresher who hasn't even started managed to stump the lot of you.
> For people that are ~so rational~, you're great at making yourselves victims at every turn
Looks like they could do with a state-subsidized Lenor soft safety blanket
elliot doesn't realise we know all about his sockpuppets
you're a shit liar m8
> Made me laugh how not a single person could answer those articles you posted on your Yahoo group, and that an 18 year old fresher who hasn't even started managed to stump the lot of you.
I'm not sure what argument you're referring to. Perhaps you could explain what you think has happened.
>Perhaps you could explain what you think has happened.
SHIT! IT'S THE FUZZ!
Why don't you have a seat right there?
Always knew Elliot was a nonce
Nothing wrong with a little bit of fiddling now and again :)
> Nothing wrong with a little bit of fiddling now and again
You clearly did enough damage to poor Lulie m9
Lulie Tanett and David Deutsch had sex?
> Lulie Tanett and David Deutsch had sex?
If you can call it that - apparently Deutsch could hardly get it up.
You know what they say about sleeping with your idol...
I'm seething with jealousy.
I just came from reading this
Normal dick:
---c=======8
Elliot's dick:
---c8
Deutsch's dick:
OO
/ /
| |
u
…………………...- *" \ - "::*'\
………………„-^*'' : : „'' : : : :: *„
…………..„-* : : :„„--/ : : : : : : : '\
…………./ : : „-* . .| : : : : : : : : '|
……….../ : „-* . . . | : : : : : : : : |
………...\„-* . . . . .| : : : : : : : :'|
……….../ . . . . . . '| : : : : : : : :|
……..../ . . . . . . . .'\ : : : : : : : |
……../ . . . . . . . . . .\ : : : : : : :|
……./ . . . . . . . . . . . '\ : : : : : /
….../ . . . . . . . . . . . . . *-„„„„-*'
….'/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '|
…/ . . . . . . . ./ . . . . . . .|
../ . . . . . . . .'/ . . . . . . .'|
./ . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . .'|
'/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'|
'| . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . .|
'| . . . . . . \„_^- „ . . . . .'|
'| . . . . . . . . .'\ .\ ./ '/ . |
| .\ . . . . . . . . . \ .'' / . '|
| . . . . . . . . . . / .'/ . . .|
| . . . . . . .| . . / ./ ./ . .|
'| . . . . . . . . .'\ .\ ./ '/ . |
| .\ . . . . . . . . . \ .'' / . '|
| . . . . . . . . . . / .'/ . . .|
| . . . . . . .| . . / ./ ./ . .|
'| . . . . . . . . .'\ .\ ./ '/ . |
| .\ . . . . . . . . . \ .'' / . '|
| . . . . . . . . . . / .'/ . . .|
| . . . . . . .| . . / ./ ./ . .|
'| . . . . . . . . .'\ .\ ./ '/ . |
.............../\
..............|\/|
..............|/\|
..............|\/| *
..............|/\| |
..............|\/|_|________
........| ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ |
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] |
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] |
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] |
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] |
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] |
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | .
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] |
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | .
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | .
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | &
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | / . ; .
........| [] [] [] |# [] / | # / ,
........| [] [] [] [] [] # / , . ._
........| [] [] [] [] #] # /_______/ |
........| [] [] [] [] # []# o o o o |] ))))))))))))))
........| [] [] [] [] [] # |\ \_____-"
........| [] [] [] [] # [] |[\ \]
........| [] [] [] # # # \ \ \ ; ±
........| [] [] [] [] # [] | ¯ #
........| [] [] [] [] [] [# | .< ~ ;
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | /.
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | $ / # #
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | ,
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | o;-<
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | . ! *
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | \
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] |
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | # o;-<
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | !
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | .
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | o'-< \
........| [] [] [] [] [] []/| \ #
........| [] [] [] [] [] [] | ,
........| [] [] [ :[] []/ |
........| :; ;] : ;[] [' | \
........| :; ; ; : / |
......../ '::'::' : / ; #
.......|':::' '::' / | .
.......\ '::' _.-`; ; ,
......./`-..--;` ; | | & .., ,
......; ; ; ; ; | | *'#,.* ,
......; ; ; ; ; ; / ,#$@&#$#£.#,
......|; ; ; ; ;/ ; #**-* * *-='.
......| ; ; ; ; / / .\ :
......| ; ; /` .\ _,&=& \ .'
......\; ; ; .'. _ ,_'\.\~" //`. \ .'
......| ; .___~' \ \- | | /,\ ` \ _.'
....~ ; ; ;/ _,.-~'|`| | | _,-''\..--'
....~ /; ;/="" |`| |`| _="`
....~..==` \\ |`| / /_="`
.....~` ~ /,\ / /_,)")
....~ ~~ _,.-)")
....~ ~ _,=~"|
....~ =~"|; ;|
.....~ ~ | ; |
..~ ~ |;|\ |
..........|/ \|
?? ? ??
*suddenly a wild Lulie appears*
???? ???????? ?? ???
????????????????????
????????????????? ?
???????????????? ??
????????????????????
??????????????????
??????????????????
??????????????????
??????????????????
?????????????? ?? ?
??????????????????
??????????????????
???????????????????????
?????????????????????????
??????????????????????????
??????????????????????????
??????????????????????????
??????????????????????????
?????????????????????????
???????????????????????..
*Throws pokeball*
____________¶¶
___________¶¶¶¶
__________¶¶¶¶¶¶
_________¶¶¥¥¥¶¶¶
________¶¶¥¥¥¥¥¶¶¶__________________________________________¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
________¶¶¥¥¥¥¥¥¶¶¶_____________________________________¶¶¶¶¶¥¥¥¥¥¶¶
________¶¶¥¥¥¥¥¥ƒƒ¶¶________________________________¶¶¶¶¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¶¶¶¶
________¶¶¥¥¥¥ƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶___________________________¶¶¶¶ƒƒ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¶¶¶¶
________¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§¶¶________________________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¥¥¥¥¥¶¶¶¶
_________¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§¶¶____________________¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¥¥¶¶¶¶
___________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒ§§¶¶__________________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶¶¶
____________¶¶ƒƒ§§§§¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§¶¶
_____________¶¶§§§§§§§ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§¶¶
______________¶¶§§§ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§¶¶¶¶___________________¶¶¶¶¶¶
____________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§¶¶¶____________________¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶
__________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒ§§§¶¶¶___________________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶
_________¶¶ƒƒ¶¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶__¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒ§§§§§¶¶________________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶
________¶¶ƒƒ¶¶__¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒ§§§§§§¶¶___________¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§¶¶
_______¶¶ƒƒƒ¶¶¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§¶¶________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§§§¶¶
_______¶¶ƒƒƒƒ¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒ¥¥¥ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ####§§§§§¶¶____¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§§§§§¶¶
_______¶¶###ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¥¥ƒƒƒƒƒƒ########§§§§¶¶¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§¶¶
_______¶¶####ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ƒƒƒƒƒƒ########§§¶¶¶¶ƒƒ¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§¶¶
____¶¶¶¶¶¶###ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¥¥¥#####¥ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ########¶¶ƒƒ¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§¶¶
__¶¶¶ƒƒ¶¶¶¶#ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¥¥####¥¥ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ####§§¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶¶¶§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§¶¶¶¶
_¶¶ƒƒ¶ƒƒƒƒ¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¥¥¥¥ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶§§§§§§§§§§§§¶¶¶¶
¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§¶¶§§§§§§§§§§¶¶¶¶
__¶¶ƒƒ§§§§§§¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§¶¶¶§§§§§§§§¶¶
____¶¶§§§§§§§¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§¶__¶§§§§§§¶¶
______¶¶§§§§§§ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§¶¶____¶¶§§§§§§¶¶
________¶¶¶§ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§¶¶_______¶¶§§§§§§¶¶
_________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§¶¶¶¶____¶¶¶¶§§§§§§§§§§¶¶
_________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§¶¶§§¶¶¶¶¶¶ƒƒ§§§§§§§§¶¶¶¶
________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§¶¶ƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§¶¶¶¶
________¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§¶¶§§§§§§§¶¶¶¶
__¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§§¶¶§§§§§§¶¶
_¶¶ƒƒ¶¶ƒƒƒ¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§§¶¶¶¶§§§§§§¶¶
_¶¶ƒƒƒ¶¶ƒƒƒ¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§§§¶¶__¶¶¶###§§§¶¶
__¶¶§§§§§§§§¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§§§§§§¶¶¶¶¶#######§§§¶¶
___¶¶§§§§§§§§¶¶ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§########¶¶¶¶¶¶
____¶¶§§§§§§§§¶¶§§§§ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§####¶¶¶¶¶¶
_____¶¶§§§§§§§¶¶§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§¶¶¶¶
_______¶¶¶¶¶¶¶§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§¶¶
______________¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§¶¶
________________________¶¶¶¶¶¶§§§§§§§§§§¶¶¶¶
____________________________¶¶¶¶§§§§¶¶¶¶¶
____________________________¶¶§§§§§§§§¶¶
____________________________¶¶§§¶¶§§§¶¶
_____________________________¶¶§¶¶§§¶¶
______________________________¶¶¶¶¶¶
---
*Deutsch turns cap backwards*
Lulie! Use rationality!
"Deutsch uses infinity loop: it's super effective!"
> "Deutsch uses infinity loop: it's super effective!"
That's not what Lulie said ...
> I think the point is that they shouldn't give a shit about him
Which posts are giving a shit about him?
>Which posts are giving a shit about him?
I love how you people ask everyone else to source shit for you. Are you that incapable of doing things yourselves and understanding what was being referred to?
I love how you people keep making up lies and then making up new lies to cover the holes in your earlier ones. Are you incapable of saying anything with enough reason behind it that you could potentially explain what you're talking about?
>I love how you people keep making up lies and then making up new lies to cover the holes in your earlier ones.
Are you seriously so fucking stupid that you couldn't work out it was referring to the way your adoring followers clearly do you dirty work for you. Justin was pretty fucking obviously the one writing some of those impersonations of you.
All your arguing consists of is "SOURCE THAT FOR MUH" until they do, and then accusing them of taking it out of context. Then when they argue against this you ask for more sources.
I think these basically sum up Elliot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_a_question (Most of his "explanations")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy (All of this Randian bullshit)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation (He claims he's "addressing every criticism", but in reality he claims victory when just one hasn't been addressed - usually because it was missed)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman (For no source ever being good enough, even though he never produces answers)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof (Always on the other person, regardless of the direction of claim)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (Against all claims against objective truth; usually paired with begging the question)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (Constant demand for sources, as though they can always be on hand; claims victory by default even when the burden of proof is on him)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence (Even when the burden of proof isn't on him, he always claims victory through this (when the correct conclusion would be "undecided")
When he starts psychoanalysing his opponents:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
> Are you seriously so fucking stupid that you couldn't work out it was referring to the way your adoring followers clearly do you dirty work for you.
Point out the posts from his "followers" being altruistic towards him, or you're a liar.
>Point out the posts from his "followers" being altruistic towards him, or you're a liar.
Yeah, that's not what I'm saying fuckwit. Stop trying to strawman this into something it isn't because you fucked up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You're really, really bad at arguing - did you know that?
Wait, is this Seph North? He likes calling people he disagrees with liars and cowards because he seems incapable of conceiving of the fact that people might legitimately disagree with him and that he might be wrong.
>Do x or you must be wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
Maybe try saying what you're saying instead of sarcastically ranting about what you "love how you people" do.
People will understand you better if you mean something.
>People will understand you better if you mean something.
Can you read? I'm beginning to doubt it.
________________$$$$
______________$$____$$
______________$$____$$
______________$$____$$
______________$$____$$
______________$$____$$
__________$$$$$$____$$$$$$
________$$____$$____$$____$$$$
________$$____$$____$$____$$__$$
$$$$$$__$$____$$____$$____$$____$$
$$____$$$$________________$$____$$
$$______$$______________________$$
__$$____$$______________________$$
___$$$__$$______________________$$
____$$__________________________$$
_____$$$________________________$$
______$$______________________$$$
_______$$$____________________$$
________$$____________________$$
_________$$$________________$$$
__________$$________________$$
__________$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Elliot, what's the deal with David Deutsch? Is he a paedophile or something?
we all know elliots a nonce anyway
Is Elliot an "autodidact" too?
> what's the deal with David Deutsch? Is he a paedophile or something?
My sources tell me Lulie was 17 at the time, so officially not an act of pedophilia.
You're writing pedo porn, not Elliot.
this pedo/paedo divide throws up some interesting conundrums for the above comments
> this pedo/paedo divide throws up some interesting conundrums for the above comments
Yeah, which ones are Harry and Carter?
Definitely a few English faggots lurking here
by "lurking" you mean "shitposting"? wrong word, bro
yeah dassitmayne
Still don't get this fascination with Deutsch/Tannet/OO
>Yeah, which ones are Harry and Carter?
Now that's what I call Lulie
Why'd you sleep with Deutsch?
If someone wanted to hide themselves, it's pretty likely they'd know the difference and would intentionally do the other one.
>by "lurking" you mean "shitposting"? wrong word, bro
you'd know all about that wouldn't you Elliot m80
> Now that's what I call Lulie
> Why'd you sleep with Deutsch?
Do we know for certain that Deutsch boned Lulie?
Shouldn't TCS logically endorse paedophilia?
> Do we know for certain that Deutsch boned Lulie?
Only a few times, but she wasn't satisfied with his limp dick
> Shouldn't TCS logically endorse paedophilia?
Why's that?
James, I'm asking you nicely to stop with these comments - this is borderline harassment and just is not OK.
> James, I'm asking you nicely to stop with these comments - this is borderline harassment and just is not OK.
Pretty sure James hasn't been commenting (and obviously that ain't Loopy Lulie)
>James, I'm asking you nicely to stop with these comments - this is borderline harassment and just is not OK.
"I don't know what harassment is"
y'all would be better to just do this PM's and shit.
Also, having met David, the idea that he is a pedophile is pretty funny. The guy is pretty much asexual.
WRONG ABOUT NATO THOUGH TBH SMH :( :( :( :(
"Shouldn't TCS logically endorse paedophilia?"
Should ask about it on OO :^)
> Also, having met David, the idea that he is a pedophile is pretty funny. The guy is pretty much asexual.
What a waste of that schlong
>James, I'm asking you nicely to stop with these comments - this is borderline harassment and just is not OK.
Didn't you constantly bang on about how you couldn't prove those people were spamming etc.?
I've hardly commented on here at all, and frankly this is getting weird.
"I've hardly commented on here at all, and frankly this is getting weird."
>Weird
You mean FUN
SHITPOSTING=/=FUNPOSTING
WE FUNPOSTING
> I've hardly commented on here at all, and frankly this is getting weird.
Mate, this has you and Cronin written all over it.
>Why's that?
Children are capable of making the same decisions as adults, according to TCS.
"Mate, this has you and Cronin written all over it."
Lulie, I know you're obsessed with me, but I'm afraid it doesn't </3
Is that actually James from OO? What even is this thread, is this chickens coming home to roost? What is the Matrix?
WE KNOW NOTHING ALL WE CAN DO IS CRITICISE THE PEOPLE'S OPINIONS HERE
IT'S LIKE IT WAS SET UP WITH CRITICAL RATIONALISM IN MIND
MUH (NO) JUSTIFICATION
>All this bitterness and cattiness
Jesus christ, I don't understand people.
Looks like there are at least 4 OO regulars on here
still was worth it if only for the ascii penis
"Is that actually James from OO?"
Yes, it is actually me. Can you drop the vendetta please, Lulie? This thread is creepy, frankly.
Who even are considered OO regulars?
Also, can't you all just get along? ;_;
Who even are considered OO regulars?
Also, can't you all just get along? ;_;
Who even are considered OO regulars?
Also, can't you all just get along? ;_;
What a douche
Is this another "criminal level shit" automated attack by Kuhan?
*snort*
TCS's children's policy
………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,
………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_
……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,
……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’,
……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |
…………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘
………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘
………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’
………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,
……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,
…………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : ; ; ; |
……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|
…………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|
..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
…….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; ‘-,
……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘’~--‘’’
………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,
……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,
……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,
……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,
…..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..’-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’’,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ,’
…,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’~-,,,,,--~~’’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…..,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-
…| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
…’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’….’, ; ; ; ; _,,-‘’
….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’~~’’¯
…..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
………’’~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
………..| ; ; ;¯¯’’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘
………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
…………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
…………’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘….’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
………..,’ ‘- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’……….’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
……….,’ ; ;’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘…………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’…………………’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
……..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘………………………’’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…………………………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’………………………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’’
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
……..’,_ , ; , ;,’……………………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
………’,,’,¯,’,’’|……………………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘--,,
………….¯…’’………………………..’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,,
……………………………………………’’-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,
………………………………………………..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;’-,’’-,
…………………………………………………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,__,--.
……………………………………………………’-, ; ; ;,,-~’’’ , ,|, |
………………………………………………………’’~-‘’_ , , ,,’,_/--‘
Lel, Just ask on OO. I'm sure you'd get a response.
> I'm sure you'd get a response.
Do you think I'm 5?
He is 12
Ageist scum
Dunno m8
Question to Elliot:
At what age (if any) should there be an age of consent?
For the record, I have not posted on this thread at all except duplicating someone's spam about baked beans.
(Ask me in FB or email and I'll confirm.)
That's not a great way to confirm, because if you had been posting you'd also know to deny it...
If that actually is Lulie (big if, I know): what actually happened between you and David Deutsch?
I think it's time for Elliot to take this page down.
Question
Out of curiosity why would posting comments automatically be "criminal"?
WTF?!
I just used "Curious guy" and my comment got tagged "Anonymous Impersonator".
Elliot you don't have a monopoly on curiosity. In fact you seldom have any.
we had some laughs elliot but now it's time to go back to obscurity. kill this page
Why would i take this down? lol
this is *still* one of the best philosophy discussions of all time. look how many great Rand quotes it has!
sorry bro, the anti-impersonation measures are harsh right now. i'll tone it down when the OO ppl get bored
whoever thinks this should be taken down is probably an OO admin
anyone notice that "OO" kind of looks like David Deutsch's massive testes?
>whoever thinks this should be taken down is probably an OO admin
Elliot, we can spot your double/triple etc. posting a mile off. No-one gives a shit about you - it's just fun to fuck with your shitty blog.
>> is this an experiment on how "free speech" doesn't work for productive discussion given most ppl have nothing to say and will only post fluff for the sake of having a say?
>
> I think it's an experiment on "Elliot tried to start a war with a forum that doesn't give a shit about him, and all it's doing is fucking up his own blog."
how is this fucking up his blog?
you are just showing to the world how dumb you all are.
>> i haven't read all the others yet before i posted. the first one, second comment. lost of good stuff here. how tragic to be a villain don't you think?
>
> oh yeah i love that quote. but i'm glad toohey and dominique and wynand were characters, not just roark and peter.
toohey is not well written. he should not have been an obvious villain "haha, i want to steal souls". he should have been more real and want to do good and appear good like socialists appear to do good.
wynand is vulgar, you see a lot of these type of heroes. minor characters like mike and the sculptor were interesting
FH without dominique would have been great. no dominique, no rape scene. and no condoning bad ideas about sex. and you prob would never get involved in pua. everything would have remained pure and rational in FI. :)
> other characters are good, so you can have scenes like this gem:
> [...] You’re not here, Dominique. You’re not alive. Where’s your I?”
> “Where’s yours, Peter?” she asked quietly.
> He sat still, his eyes wide. She knew that his thoughts, in this moment, were clear and immediate like visual perception, that the act of thinking was an act of seeing a procession of years behind him.
“It’s not true,” he said at last, his voice hollow. “It’s not true.”
Well, it is amusing Peter discovers he is as dead as Dominique. But why did Roark like her? He didn't like her, she liked that she chased him, right?
> I gave you what you wanted. I became what you are, what your friends are, what most of humanity is so busy being—only without the trimmings. I didn’t go around spouting book reviews to hide my emptiness of judgment—I said I had no judgment. I didn’t borrow designs to hide my creative impotence—I created nothing. I didn’t say that equality is a noble conception and unity the chief goal of mankind—I just agreed with everybody. You call it death, Peter? That kind of death—I’ve imposed it on you and on everyone around us.
I don't get a character who is dead to show others how dead they are.
> But you-you haven’t done that. People are comfortable with you, they like you, they enjoy your presence. You’ve spared them the blank death. Because you’ve imposed it—on yourself.”
why ppl not like crit. and don't like to talk about TCS in public. i noticed how this quote is relevant to a discussion in my group.
>“It’s said that the worst thing one can do to a man is to kill his self-respect. But that’s not true. Self-respect is something that can’t be killed. The worst thing is to kill a man’s pretense at it.”
good one! also relevant to a convo on FI group.
> When he raised his head, she looked at him as if, for a moment, he was her husband. She said: “Peter, if you could hold on to it—to what you are now——”
“I love you,” he said.
They sat silently together for a long time. He felt no strain in the silence.
The telephone rang.
It was not the sound that destroyed the moment; it was the eagerness with which Keating jumped up and ran to answer it. She heard his voice through the open door, a voice indecent in its relief:
“Hello? ... Oh, hello, Ellsworth! ... No, not a thing.... Free as a lark.... Sure, come over, come right over! ... Okey-doke!”
yet you still fix all problems can be fixed? could he have held on to what he was in that moment he was enlightened?
> whoever thinks this should be taken down is probably an OO admin
Which one?
> whoever thinks this should be taken down is probably an OO admin
Elliot thinks the OO admins give a singular shit about this dump of a blog. Not after Lulie got binned they don't.
> Not after Lulie got binned
Poor Lulie, a victim of James Carter's vendetta
victim of vienetta moar lyke m80
> Which one?
It's always the quiet ones: Ash MQ
>a victim of James Carter's vendetta
Jacob made the final decision m8, and he saw right through her bullshit
> It's always the quiet ones: Ash MQ
I know why you're saying this, and it gives you away as Lulie
> it gives you away as Lulie
How??
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 5h5 hours ago
Another retard Q from 60 Min: How can you be serious about running for president, when you say you'll go back to your business if you lose?
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 5h5 hours ago
Retarded Q from 60 Min: HOW WILL YOU GET GOP CONGRESS TO GO ALONG WITH YOU??? If Trump wins election, GOPs will be terrified to oppose him.
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 5h5 hours ago
Media definition of "thin-skinned": Oh what a hideous beast! When attacked, it responds.
“Is he any good?”
Ellsworth Toohey turned and looked straight into his eyes.
“By my immortal soul, Hopton,” he said slowly, “he’s the best there is.”
>How??
:^)
>How??
> :^)
The plot / David Deutsch's penis thickens . . .
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 23s24 seconds ago
Hey! Where's Warren Buffet? He's been making journalists swoon forever by claiming he should pay more in taxes. Trump thinks so, too!
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
Donald Chump*
Ann Coulter Retweeted
Conservative Pundit ?@DemsRRealRacist 1h1 hour ago
Fiorina is like some brutal warrior goddess from a tribe where they choose leaders based on court mandates to hire and promote more women.
Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump 7m7 minutes ago
Wow, the ratings for @60Minutes last night were their biggest in a year--- very nice!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/09/trumponomics
the rest of the details during the general election, i hope.
FB unschooler:
> Those of you with children struggling with ADHD behaviors (I'm not just talking about non-stop movement), do you implement a schedule in your home? If so, how has it helped?
>
> A strict schedule is repeatedly recommended to me to "help" my son but I wonder if people find it helpful just so the child is used to a schedule so they can handle the schedule at school, which doesn't apply to us.
>
> I'm open to any other advice or suggestions for things that have been helpful in your families, but please no MLM products. smile emoticon
"There wasn't a person there who enjoyed it," she said, her voice lifeless, "or who thought or felt anything at all. They moved about, and they said the same dull things they say anywhere. I suppose they thought the lights would make it brilliant."
"Darling, you take everything too seriously. One is not supposed to be intellectual at a ball. One is simply supposed to be gay."
"How? By being stupid?"
"I mean, for instance, didn't you enjoy meeting the young men?"
"What men? There wasn't a man there I couldn't squash ten of."
trump tax plan seems near the maximum for how good we could have expected it to be a month ago.
Elliot demonstrates he has no idea how economics works.
How does economics work
There is no magic $367bn+ money tree, Elliot.
Not sure how a money tree is supposed to help anyways. Seems Iike it'd be inflationary
Let me give you some examples. An intellectual who was recruiting members for Mensa—an international society allegedly restricted to intelligent men, which selects members on the dubious basis of I.Q. tests—was quoted in an interview as follows: “Intelligence is not especially admired by people. Outside Mensa you had to be very careful not to win an argument and lose a friend. Inside Mensa we can be ourselves and that is a great relief.” (The New York Times, September 11, 1966.) A friend, therefore, is more important than the truth. What kind of friend? The kind that resents you for being right.
Or maybe it's because Mensa is full of insufferable asses with no conception of when it is appropriate to have an argument. They don't resent you for being right; they resent you for *thinking* you're right all the time and rubbing it in their faces.
I'm guessing this possibility didn't occur to you, because it leaves open the possibility that someone thinks you're either so intellectually inferior and yet insufferably stubborn you're not worth their time debating (because they have better things to do, like talking to open-minded people), or have other considerations than proving your gigantic ego wrong, which incidentally sets up unfalsifiable defence mechanisms such as constantly asking for sources, or denying the credibility of what someone has said.
I'm guessing you're doing it right now with what I've just written, by denying that you're close-minded even when it's patently obvious to those around you that you're incapable of considering positions other than your own, and irrationally "hold frame" against them even when they're clearly correct.
> Or maybe it's because Mensa is full of insufferable asses with no conception of when it is appropriate to have an argument.
just shame them as autistic. you know you want to.
> unfalsifiable defence mechanisms such as constantly asking for sources, or denying the credibility of what someone has said.
lol
> just shame them as autistic. you know you want to.
When you have nothing to say, you put words in my mouth.
> lol
Exactly what I was referring to.
Face it Elliot - your behavior has been laid bare and you don't know what to do about it.
you're advocating non-scholarship and low standards. that doesn't work.
unsourced assertions and anecdotes are not how one figures stuff out
>you're advocating non-scholarship and low standards
No, that isn't what I'm advocating. I'm saying that when you're proven wrong you constantly demand more, and then assume you're correct when people can't follow your impossible standards.
That's called status quo bias, and frankly you're a fucking shit "scholar" if you don't realize that's what you do.
You're a lost cause, you really are. You're so caught up with trying to prove that you're intelligent to everyone, and refusing to ever question your own beliefs.
Could you even attempt to describe Objectivism from the point of view of someone else?
> I'm saying that when you're proven wrong you constantly demand more, and then assume you're correct when people can't follow your impossible standards.
quotes or it didn't happen
Lol. You literally cannot function any other way can you. The irony is delicious.
I see why no-one takes you seriously.
you see no need give (or link to) an argument or explanation for your claims
i guess you really want people to just take your word for it
FH
> Have you noticed that the imbecile always smiles? Man’s first frown is the first touch of God on his forehead. The touch of thought.
> i guess you really want people to just take your word for it
no, i think he wants them to smell the stench of radiant certainty on me, and see me unbowed, unbroken, unafraid, and then join him in a mob against me for that reason.
> you see no need give (or link to) an argument or explanation for your claims
of course not, this isn't about truth
> i guess you really want people to just take your word for it
that's too naive, assumes this is about truth. taking someone's for something means believing them, regarding it as true because they said to.
this is about people who don't like Elliot's frame joining together to try to break it, and break him.
All of these posts were in the same style. They're quite clearly all by you, Elliot.
Also I love this frame thing - it's just your way of trying to justify dismissing any point of view you disagree with.
Plus if you can't work out that the majority of these posts are referring to the very thing they're replying to then it's no wonder you haven't been employed since 2007.
> All of these posts were in the same style. They're quite clearly all by you, Elliot.
you're mistaken.
huh, so my interpretation was too charitable
it's not that he's arguing badly, like trying to make a point and failing
he's just using words to try to stir up a mob hatred of you
it's hard to fathom the depths of most people's depravity
500
at least they helped us reach 500 comments!!!!!!!!!
Frank J. Fleming ?@IMAO_ 3m3 minutes ago
Seen a few tweets where the gist of them were "Planned Parenthood gave me birth control, so ignore the organ harvesting."
Frank J. Fleming ?@IMAO_ 5m5 minutes ago
It just seems like there has to be a way to get people birth control without it being connected to the Jeffrey Dahmer stuff.
Frank J. Fleming ?@IMAO_ 2m2 minutes ago
Don't even think Orwell could imagine "woman's health" becoming this catch-all phrase that even includes harvesting brains from tiny humans.
Every single one of these posts in reply to mine are written in the sane style (not counting the Planned Parenthood one). It's really obvious that it's you. Stop pretending it isn't Elliot.
You also have no idea what a good argument is. It's pretty fucking funny when I say you put constant demands on your opponent and set impossible standards of proof, assuming you're correct if they're not met, for you to do exactly that when doubting that.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were trolling.
Elliot demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding of stem cell research if he endorses those tweets.
> he's just using words to try to stir up a mob hatred of you
There's nothing to stir up there son. Apart from the deluded whackjobs that worship him, Elliot is pretty universally reviled and mocked online. If he thinks he does a good job at arguing, he fails pretty hard at convincing anyone.
He even pulls the "everyone else is the problem, not me" schtick.
stem cell researched has scientifically proven that it's OK for organizations to break the law and continue to receive federal funding?
> stem cell researched has scientifically proven that it's OK for organizations to break the law and continue to receive federal funding?
I thought you didn't believe in the state, hence laws.
You are a contradictory fucking mess aren't you.
>it's hard to fathom the depths of most people's depravity
Yours is pretty fucking grim m8
When was the last time you got laid?
Funny how you're so quick to reply when I directly address stuff at you.
Someone might think you're obsessing over this and pretending that you've got people at your back. You're so autistic you don't even know how to type in a different style to disguise it.
Face it Elliot. You're a failure. No-one likes you. You're not very intelligent. Your philosophy is incoherent bullshit. Everything you stand for has been done earlier and better by someone else.
Some might think I have email notification for my own site :)
> Some might think I have email notification for my own site
No fucking shit Sherlock. It's the fact you're obsessively checking and responding to it.
i don't even know who writes half this stuff.
when the style is similar to me, presumably it's one of my multi-year fans. but there's so many it's hard to tell them apart :)
oh calm down, i always check my email a lot, this is nothing special
> this is nothing special
That's the point
> when the style is similar to me, presumably it's one of my multi-year fans
I know you obsess over trying to make everyone the same as you, but you're not fooling anyone. You have a weird, warped, antagonistic conception of the world that comes about from your utter failure to understand empathy.
come on everyone, hop on the bandwagon of hate
you don't have to use your mind or your independent judgment
just feel
mob anything that looks alive, like the bunch of fucking zombies you are
> I don't get a character who is dead to show others how dead they are.
you not getting the book doesn't mean some characters should be removed. you could learn about it more instead.
> yet you still fix all problems can be fixed? could he have held on to what he was in that moment he was enlightened?
if you have a criticism of BoI's problems are soluble arguments, let us know.
>I thought you didn't believe in the state, hence laws.
James Carter u seem rly mad m8.
Anyways m8 just cuz u think the state-m8 could eventually be superseded by ancap doesn't mean u think all laws including e.g. Murder laws should stop being enforced or taking seriously immediately.
Maybe m8 u should read what Godwin-m8 says about how bad it would be it England stopped existing tomorrow m8.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/apples-iphone-6s-has-sold-out-in-china/
Daniel Greenfield ?@Sultanknish 13m13 minutes ago
PLO to Stop Abiding by Agreement it Never Abided By | Frontpage Mag http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260302/plo-stop-abiding-agreement-it-never-abided-daniel-greenfield#.VgxEmAuAv4Q.twitter …
dear god this title, from hacker news
Boredom is not a problem to be solved, it's the privilege of a free mind (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/28/boredom-cures-privilege-free-mind?CMP=fb_gu)
303 points by vinnyglennon 9 hours ago | 75 comments
article beginning clarifies what brand of evil it is:
> Lean in to boredom, not your smart phone screen. You’ll learn more about yourself and the world around you than you think
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-30.html
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-30.html
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-30.html
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-30.html
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/09/30/ad-blocking-irony
DF makes a great arg here!
https://medium.com/backchannel/how-steve-jobs-fleeced-carly-fiorina-79d1380663de
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309602
patio11 11 hours ago | parent | on: Secret developers of the video game industry
In a few industries, for industry-specific reasons, who appears on credits and the exact contents of those credits actually does matter for career advancement purposes. Video games are one of those industries. Film and academia are two others. It is critically important to your future if you're an assistant professor or software developer working on the 3-D engine that your work get recorded in the industry-standard manner. It is difficult to appreciate this if you're not in academia, but getting your name listed first (and not second!) in the paper edition of a magazine that no one reads is actually really important.
Many of the rest of us work in industries without this professional norm. That's wonderful for us, but does not itself fix the problems of this norm for people affected by it.
GotPickup PUA Player ?@gotpickup 3m3 minutes ago
One of the most amazing feelings in the world is banging someone with whom you thought you never had a chance.
what a second-hander
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-01/amazon-will-ban-sale-of-apple-google-video-streaming-devices
Amazon to Ban Sale of Apple, Google Video-Streaming Devices
>>GotPickup PUA Player ?@gotpickup 3m3 minutes ago
>>One of the most amazing feelings in the world is banging someone with whom you thought you never had a chance.
>
>what a second-hander
why second-hand?
I don't think it's a particularly worthwhile goal, but that's equivalent to "I just did something I thought was really hard, awesome!" and doesn't strike me as second hand at all
The thrill there is about meeting her standards, being good enough for her.
ah, like it's focused on achievement gaining and feeling validated for scoring extra achievements rather than skill gaining and learning
yes.
note: hooking up with her is a social status.
> Face it Elliot. You're a failure. No-one likes you. You're not very intelligent. Your philosophy is incoherent bullshit. Everything you stand for has been done earlier and better by someone else.
Who in particular? Name him or her.
If you don't already have someone on the tip of your tongue, then why did you say it? Because you were trying to make an insult, rather than state a fact.
If you do, go ahead and tell us so that we can learn from this better person. Don't be a bitch and hide it from us.
> Face it Elliot. You're a failure. No-one likes you. You're not very intelligent. Your philosophy is incoherent bullshit. Everything you stand for has been done earlier and better by someone else.
This is interesting.
At some point in history, this was true. Somebody before elliot said it better than elliot.
Question: Did elliot feel bad about that? No. Only the status-seeker feels bad about that.
But here this person is saying this as an insult to elliot. he thinks that elliot would feel bad if someone was better than him. fucking stupid.
i found some more gems:
> Elliot, we can spot your double/triple etc. posting a mile off. No-one gives a shit about you - it's just fun to fuck with your shitty blog.
heh, insults are fun for him. he enjoys trying to hurt people. such a status-seeker.
> how is this fucking up his blog?
LOL i know. looking from their lens, it looks like this blog is getting fucked.
> (emphasis added) I'm guessing this possibility didn't occur to you, because it leaves open the possibility that someone thinks you're either so intellectually inferior and yet insufferably stubborn you're ***not worth their time*** debating (because they have better things to do, like talking to open-minded people), or have other considerations than proving your gigantic ego wrong, which incidentally sets up unfalsifiable defence mechanisms such as constantly asking for sources, or denying the credibility of what someone has said.
so… y r u here? by being here, you’re saying it’s worth your time. is this a contradiction that you noticed and are ok with self-contradictory ideas, or did you not notice it?
> I see why no-one takes you seriously.
how would you know whether anyone takes elliot seriously? so stupid.
what’s going on here is that you WISH no one to takes elliot seriously. according to your worldview, no one would take elliot seriously. but your worldview doesn’t explain why FI people take elliot seriously.
> All of these posts were in the same style. They're quite clearly all by you, Elliot.
lol. elliots style is objectively better than others, so.. good people recognize that and learn it. and then you mistake us for being elliot.
i’m putting my name on this one just to see what happens. so whoever you are, do you think this is elliot or rami (or maybe some other person)?
exposing ppl's contradictions to them is fun!
http://www.returnofkings.com/71593/how-the-big-bang-theory-and-other-mainstream-sitcoms-lie-to-men?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Frank J. Fleming ?@IMAO_ 3h3 hours ago
Of course Bernie Sanders isn't anti-gun. How are you going to make socialism work without lots of guns?
http://www.returnofkings.com/71547/flaws-i-have-discovered-in-red-pill-game-doctrines?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
rekt: @tedcruz >>>>>> @sierraclub
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
there's a sorta way ppl write/think when they are Oists and don't know any other philosophies.
i'm bad at it cuz i learned Popper first. but I'm no good at writing like an orthodox Popperian either.
it's generally hard to learn and remember the original versions of things, minus your adjustments. cuz it's not important. one should mainly try to remember stuff he thinks is true about the world, about philosophy, etc, rather than historical facts about which schools believed what.
The Onion ?@TheOnion 21m21 minutes ago
New Anti-Drug Program Teaches Teens To Resist Psychiatrist’s Constant Pressure To Use Drugs http://onion.com/1R09X98
https://twitter.com/DanielPipes/status/651964153205268480
ugh Pipes dumb
they raise the prices cuz of how the insurance system works and cuz of various govt intervention
that isn't the market price if it was a free market and some ppl were uninsured. it may well not be the price an uninsured person would pay today, either
it's like when ppl set the price high and then give u a 90% discount
it's partly marketing
and apparently it even works on ppl like Daniel Pipes
so i guess it makes most ppl think they are getting a great deal
so ofc it's done
i think the list price is like: suppose you're rich and don't plan ahead at all and then come into the emergency room and say "whatever it costs, i'll pay, just fix me up. here's my amex". it's what that person pays.
they are making that the list price so they can charge it to that person. and maybe some other ppl. esp when the govt picks up some/all of the bill.
but it's not the regular price most ppl are expected to pay
@onion - too bad more ppl won't see the truth to that, specifically what pyschiatry does
>While Thorpe said the program is a great start, she noted that the systemic problem couldn’t be fully addressed until the government shows the will to take on the handful of large, powerful groups that are behind the drugs’ production and distribution.
i don't think big pharma is the main problem. big pharma is not what's creating the market. people and their mistaken ideas about "mental illness" are what's creating the market.
Daniel Greenfield ?@Sultanknish 1m1 minute ago
Muslim Migrants Increase Crime in Germany by 65% | Frontpage Mag http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260393/muslim-migrants-increase-crime-germany-65-daniel-greenfield#.VhaRnCY_AX4.twitter …
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 55m55 minutes ago
HOW ABOUT TED CRUZ FOR SPEAKER! (Can it be a senator?)
Senator Ted Cruz ?@SenTedCruz 19m19 minutes ago
As @POTUS rushes to remove sanctions on Iran’s oil industry, he vows to maintain sanctions on the U.S. oil industry http://1.usa.gov/1JXRUeC
curi i want to learn how to make blogs and I really like yours! you must be really good if you made this all by yourself! can you recommend me where I should start?
"It's so wonderful," said Dr. Stadler, his voice low. "It's so wonderful to see a great, new, crucial idea which is not mine!"
She looked at him, wishing she could believe that she understood him correctly. He spoke, in passionate sincerity, discarding convention, discarding concern for whether it was proper to let her hear the confession of his pain, seeing nothing but the face of a woman who was able to understand: “Miss Taggart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own—they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal— for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them—while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity., because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear. They have no way of knowing what he feels when surrounded by inferiors—hatred? no, not hatred, but boredom the terrible, hopeless, draining, paralyzing boredom. Of what account are praise and adulation from men whom you don't respect? Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?"
"I've felt it all my life," she said. It was an answer she could not refuse him.
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 10h10 hours ago
I think it's brave of Ray McMillin to come out as less of a man than a 99-lb girl. RT@RMcmillin I think brave of AC to come out as transgndr
Chris Phoenix ?@BloodR3dPhoenix 9h9 hours ago
Women are like snowflakes, each beautiful and unique in a way that doesn't affect your fundamental relationship with them at all
> curi i want to learn how to make blogs and I really like yours! you must be really good if you made this all by yourself! can you recommend me where I should start?
so cute! who are you?
i hate anonymity because then i see likable ppl but i don't know who they are. :(
By the way, I mean cute honestly, not sarcastically. As in: "such a nice, positive, innocent comment".
> do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own
sounds like me. :(
Leo, I think they were trying to make fun of the blog.
> So go ahead, write in the comments on this thread all the stuff you would have posted to FI list if only it had lower standards and no formatting rules. It's just blog comments. Say whatever. Who cares? Let's go!
So you are saying some stuff never gets expressed on FI list and exposed to criticism there coz of the standards and formatting thing?
yes. ppl are dumb about that.
https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/10/the-biggest-scam-of-the-2016-election
hannity:
fucking dems so dishonest. some lefty bitch describes trump's tax plan as raising taxes on middle class to lower on rich. did she not read his tax plan at all? goddddddddd
they just lie. no respect for facts AT ALL. just tell a story
trump was asked who would be good speaker.
says: concerned about ryan's weak stance on immigration cuz we need a wall. doesn't give any names
trump was asked if newt gingrich would be good speaker
answers: newt is a great guy, he says the nicest stuff about me, i don't even wanna repeat it, it was so nice i'd be bragging. i've heard ppl suggest him
lol
o'reilly:
ben carson: the left is like a fly that's been spraid by raid. spinning around, desparate
Breitbart News ?@BreitbartNews 21m21 minutes ago
NYTimes finds it "curious" that grassroots conservative media is vetting Paul Ryan on issues like immigration: http://trib.al/xpvHzh2
>> do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own
>
> sounds like me. :(
So fix it. Work at it. Be better.
Resenting the achievement of another, afaik, comes from envy. You see something someone else has and you want it.
People react in different ways.
Some people resent the success and fume silently. Some people use it to fuel their campaign against those that succeed like that (eg anti-capitalism). The shittest people try to steal from the achievers.
I think a good response is:
Do you think what they have is valuable? (like seriously think about this, make sure you're not valuing it just cos society values it or elliot values it or something)
Is it something you are interested in having? (cos there are a ton of valuable things in the world, you can't do them all at once right now)
If so, work out how they did it. Learn about their good ideas that they used to succeed. Be critical and try to improve where possible. Maybe you'll still fail, there can be a ton of inexplicit knowledge behind success that's hard to learn. But then you identify your mistakes and keep going.
> Resenting the achievement of another, afaik, comes from envy.
Why do you think so? "afaik" is not an explanation or argument.
> The shittest people try to steal from the achievers.
How can you steal skill? We're talking about achievement, being able to do awesome.
> I think a good response is:
Do you think what they have is valuable? (like seriously think about this, make sure you're not valuing it just cos society values it or elliot values it or something)
It's not what they have, but what they can do. Yes, what they can do is valuable. What Elliot can do is valuable, but I am more envious of artists, people that can't help but draw all the time.
> Is it something you are interested in having? (cos there are a ton of valuable things in the world, you can't do them all at once right now)
I just want to finish my comic.
I miss when I had that urge to draw.
If I was drawing like I binge on food, I'd be so productive. Like 4000 cals worth of drawings a day, imagine that!
Now I spend more time thinking about it than doing it.
patio11 1 day ago | parent | on: Twitter announces layoffs
Speaking in personal capacity here rather than as CEO of a recruiting company: isn't after you've just been fired or near-fired the best possible time ever for a recruiter to try to give you a job offer? Most people need to work for a living. Getting people without jobs good jobs seems to be the socially most beneficial thing a recruiter could ever do.
What's the argument for waiting an hour? "I had a job for you but wanted to give you some time to process how you're unemployed and cast out as valueless?" Eff that. "You're awesome. Fault was with Twitter. Here's one of your numerous options. If you need a few weeks before start date we can totally do that but we're more than happy to fix your pressing issue today." seems objectively better.
patio11 2 days ago | parent | on: A Student Loan System Stacked Against the Borrower
Student loans are at below-market interest rates and are guaranteed to be available in quantity. The market does not generally offer non-secured signature loans for $20k to $140k to people with no credit history or limited credit history and no income. When it does, it charges literally 10+% more.
new email writing video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu8ndRvrhrw&list=PLKx6lO5RmaesaCfm2dXGUfbycDYEXJoU9&index=19
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-10-14.html
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-10-14.html
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-10-14.html
Donald Trump opened his campaign talking about Mexican rapists, pledged to build a wall and deport illegals -- and has soared to the top of the polls.
The massive Hispanic blowback consists of this: Trump is getting about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Romney did.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/10/15/ibm-macs
ONLY 5 PERCENT OF MAC USERS AT IBM NEED HELP DESK SUPPORT, COMPARED TO 40 PERCENT OF PC USERS
Ted Cruz ?@tedcruz 33m33 minutes ago
Sec. Kerry should immediately disavow these offensive assertions about Israel or resign: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/ted-cruz-demands-kerry-resign-over-israel-criticism/ …
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z5iupcgPi0HKg1MrhWpaxZslt_sDXq1Kp9ltLrFR8Vk/edit#gid=0
http://pastebin.com/ScRnL5nQ
can you learn anything from these MM speedrun routes? can you see anything interesting about them? if not, can you see any way that may reveal a lack of skill that matters?
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 15m15 minutes ago
Can we redefine "passion" to mean something other than "poor financial decisionmaking", please?
9 retweets 16 favorites
Reply Retweet 9 Favorite 16
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 13m13 minutes ago
I get frustrated when that word is used an excuse and angry when it is used as a weapon.
3 retweets 4 favorites
Reply Retweet 3 Favorite 4
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 12m12 minutes ago
You've never seen passion used as a weapon before? "You'll love working here." "Do you pay market?" "We prefer passionate workers not mercs"
1 retweet 4 favorites
Reply Retweet 1 Favorite 4
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 9m9 minutes ago
Oddly enough no one expects the investors to get passionate returns, the landlord to get passionate rents, or the insurance passion premiums
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 9s9 seconds ago
Tightly defined processes are very attractive to potential buyers. #dcbkk
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 6m6 minutes ago
Serious buyers are not afraid of being asked for proof of funds. Tire kickers are. Ask it at the LOI stage or earlier to qualify. #dcbkk
1 retweet 2 favorites
Reply Retweet 1 Favorite 2
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 8m8 minutes ago
"I did not understand the amount of emotional labor required to sell a business." <-- THIS. I cried literal tears when I sold BCC. #dcbkk
0 retweets 2 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite 2
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 7m7 minutes ago
I have an actual baby. A business is very much not a baby. But it IS something you poured blood/sweat/tears into for years.
2 retweets 3 favorites
Reply Retweet 2 Favorite 3
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 13m13 minutes ago
When selling a business, your little optimizations to shift personal-ish expenses to the business (tax optimization) cost you dearly. #dcbkk
1 retweet 4 favorites
Reply Retweet 1 Favorite 4
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 12m12 minutes ago
"Your Macbook Pro for last year will cost you $10k." ($3k MacBook knocks $3k profit off the business, at a 3X+ valuation at the sale...)
0 retweets 3 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite 3
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 16m16 minutes ago
Business brokers are incentivized to *close deals in volume*, not by to get the best possible deal on your transaction specifically. #dcbkk
0 retweets 3 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite 3
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 15m15 minutes ago
Shoutout to @ThomasSmale and the rest of the team at FEI, who actually did get very, very good terms for me.
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorite 1
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 14m14 minutes ago
But agency problems are common in many middleman relationships -- the classic example is real estate agents.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10401416
> Privacy and secrecy, in my mind, are questions of agency. In this context we're talking about information. You can, broadly speaking, only do three things with information: create it, retain it, and share it.
ppl are so stupid with their claims at COMPLETE lists. he says ONLY 3 things. what about receive it? what about forget it? what about edit it?
ted cruz interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQRiOa9A0rM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260501/foxs-greta-van-susteren-lets-huma-abedin-hook-matthew-vadum#.ViUash1xjvQ.twitter
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260495/frustrated-muslims-cant-stop-killing-jews…-and-daniel-greenfield
Breitbart News ?@BreitbartNews 60m60 minutes ago
Study: More Than Two-Thirds of Patients on Anti-Depressants Not Depressed http://trib.al/qwGB1Is
100% of patients on anti-depressants not depressed
> 100% of patients on anti-depressants not depressed
how did you determine that?
the "mental illness" called "depression" is a myth.
> the "mental illness" called "depression" is a myth.
how did you determine that?
Mental illness advocates say that depression is something more than just chronic unhappiness or a problem in living. They think that it has to do with actual chemical and structural changes in the brain. I disagree with that. I don't think "depression" is an illness. I don't think there are chemical and/or structural changes in the body which *cause* depression.
so you think depression is undetectable at autopsy?
or undetectable with an unconscious person, who you can e.g. brainscan, but never speak with.
(assume you get ZERO other information about their life)
I don’t think the arguments about brain scans are a good explanation cuz ofc brain scans are going to look different for any group of people you compare - we have different ideas. Ideas can cause brains to look differently.
And brains looking differently doesn't mean structural and/or chemical changes in the brain are the CAUSE of "depression".
the CAUSE is ideas. Emotions (even chronic unhappiness) are *ideas*. So "depression" is about ideas and idea-conflicts.
i can't tell. is that a yes or a no?
First, my guess is that the claim and evidence that "depression is detectable at autopsy" would not survive high quality criticism. If you want to make that claim, you should post it and your explanation to FI.
Second, even if some people chose to see a correlation between brain activity and "depressed" people, that doesn't mean that the structural or chemical changes in the brain CAUSED the "depression".
i still can't tell. is that a yes or a no?
i'm asking what YOU think. do YOU think depression is detectable like that, or not? you haven't answered. twice. which is weird.
No. I don't think the "depression" is detectable on an autopsy.
you think that i believe "depression" is detectable at autopsy. right?
why did you form that opinion and start replying to it?
depression is a mental illness, not a brain illness. so it doesn't need to be detectable at autopsy.
Depression is behaviour, not an illness.
depression is like a virus affecting the mind. it's a set of memes that disable the rational part of the mind. it's like a software virus. it's an illness of software.
> depression is like a virus affecting the mind. it's a set of memes that disable the rational part of the mind. it's like a software virus. it's an illness of software.
A virus injects itself into your DNA. And your body has no means of preventing that or removing it afterwords.
A static meme is adopted by a mind. And that mind (you) has the means of preventing that adoption and removing it afterwords (if adopted already).
So viruses are not like static memes.
Caroline Glick
14 hrs · Edited ·
What does Hillary Clinton have to do to lose her supporters?
I can't understand it. US diplomatic staff in Libya made 600 requests for extra security in the lead up to the attack on the US installation in Benghazi. 600. She ignored all 600. All of them.
Yet Maureen Dowd and all the rest have embraced her as a conquering heroine for standing up to the meanie Republican white men with weird hair in the House of Representatives.
http://www.nationalreview.com/…/hillary-clinton-benghazi-li…
early ayn rand, from material cut from FH. i think it's really interesting to read a different version of one of the amazing scenes:
“Something wonderful’s happened to me! I’m signing the contract tomorrow. I’m going to Hollywood.”
He sat silently, his arms on the table before him, and looked at her.
“I’m going as soon as the play closes,” she said, and threw her hands up, and whirled on one toe, her skirt flaring like a dancer’s. “I didn’t tell you, but they took a test of me—weeks ago—and I saw it, I don’t really look very pretty, but they said they could fix that and that I had personality and they’ll give me a chance, and I’m signing a contract!”
“For how long?” he asked.
“Oh, that? That’s nothing. It’s for five years, but it’s only options, you know, I don’t have to stay there that long.”
He snapped his finger against the edge of a sheet of newspaper and the click of his nail sent it across the table with a thin, whining crackle, like a string plucked, and he said nothing.
“Oh, no,” she said, too emphatically, “I’m not giving up the stage. It’s just to make some quick money.”
“You don’t need it. You said you could have any part you chose next year.”
“Sure. I can always have that—after those notices.”
“Next year, you could do what you’ve wanted to do.”
“I’m doing that.”
“So I see.”
“Well, why not? It’s such a chance.”
“For what?”
“Oh, for . . . for . . . Hell, I don’t see why you have to disapprove!”
“I haven’t said that.”
“Oh, no! You never say anything. Well, what’s wrong with it?”
“Nothing. Only that you’re lying.”
“How?”
“You’re not going for the money.”
“Well . . . well, for what then? And isn’t it better— whatever you mean than to go for money? I thought you wouldn’t approve of my going after money.”
“No, Vesta. You thought I might approve. That’s why you said it.”
“Well, is it all right if it’s for the money?”
“It might be. But that’s not what you’re after.”
“What am I after?”
“People.”
“What people?”
“Millions of them. Carloads. Tons. Swarms of them. To look at you. To admire you. No matter what they’re admiring you for.”
“You’re being silly. I don’t know what you’re driving at. And besides, if I make good, I don’t have to play in stupid movies. I can select my parts. I can do as much as on the stage. More. Because it will reach so many more people and . . .” He was laughing. “Oh, all right, don’t be so smart! You’ll see. I can do what I want on the screen, too. Just give me time. I’ll do everything I want.”
“Joan d’Arc?”
“Why not? Besides, it’ll help. I’ll make a name for myself, then watch me come back to the stage and do Joan d’Arc! And furthermore . . .”
“Look, Vesta, I’m not arguing. You’re going. That’s fine. Don’t explain too much.”
“You don’t have to look like a judge dishing out a life sentence! And I don’t care whether you approve or not!”
“I haven’t said I didn’t.”
“I thought you’d be glad for me. Everybody else was. But you have to spoil it.”
“How?”
“Oh, how! How do you always manage to spoil everything? And here I was so anxious to tell you! I couldn’t wait. Where on earth have you been all evening, by the way?”
“Working.”
“What? Where?”
“In the office.”
“What office? Have you found a job?”
“Two weeks ago.”
“Oh! . . . Well, how nice. . . . Doing what?”
“Well, what do you suppose?”
“Oh, you got a real job? With an architect? So you found one to take you after all?”
“Yes.”
“Well . . . it’s wonderful . . . I’m awfully glad. . . . Oh, I’m awfully glad. . . .” She heard her own voice, flat and empty and with a thin, strange, distant note in it, a note that was anger without reason; she wondered whether it sounded like that to him also. She said quickly: “I hope you’re set this time. I hope you’ll be successful someday—like everybody else.”
He leaned back and looked at her. She stood defiantly, holding his eyes, saying nothing, flaunting her consciousness of the meaning of his silence.
“You’re not glad that I got it,” he said. “You hope I won’t last. That’s the next best to the thing you really hope—that I’ll be successful someday like everybody else.”
“You’re talking nonsense. I don’t know what you’re saying.”
He sat, looking at her, without moving. She shrugged and turned away; she picked up the newspaper and flipped its pages violently, as if the loud crackling could shut out the feeling of his eyes on her.
“All right,” he said slowly. “Now say it.”
“What?” she snapped, whirling around.
“What you’ve wanted to say for a long time.”
She flung the newspaper aside. She said: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
“Say it, Vesta.”
“Oh, you’re impossible! You’re . . .” And then her voice dropped suddenly, and she spoke softly, simply, pleading: “Howard, I love you. I don’t know what it is. I don’t know why it should be like this. I love you and I can’t stand you. And also, I wouldn’t love you if I could stand you, if you were any different. But what you are—that frightens me, Howard. I don’t know why. It frightens me because it’s something in me which I don’t want. No. Because it’s something in me which I do want, but I’d rather not want it, and . . . Oh, you can’t understand any of it!”
“Go on.”
“Yes, damn you, you do understand! . . . Oh, don’t look at me like that! . . . Howard, Howard, please listen. It’s this: you want the impossible. You are the impossible yourself—and you expect the impossible. I can’t feel human around you. I can’t feel simple, natural, comfortable. And one’s got to be comfortable sometime! It’s like . . . like as if you had no weekdays at all in your life, nothing but Sundays, and you expect me always to be on my Sunday behavior. Everything is important to you, everything is great, significant in some way, every minute, even when you keep still. God, Howard, one can’t stand that! It becomes unbearable . . . if . . . if I could only put it into words!”
“You have. Very nicely.”
“Oh, please, Howard, don’t look like that! I’m not . . . I’m not criticizing you. I understand. I know what you want of life. I want it too. That’s why I love you. But, Howard! You can’t be that all the time! God, not all the time! One’s got to be human also.”
“What?”
“Human! One has to relax. One gets tired of the heroic.”
“What’s heroic about me?”
“Nothing. Everything! . . . No, you don’t do anything. You don’t say anything. I don’t know. It’s only what you make people feel in your presence.”
“What?”
“The abnormal. The overnormal. The strain. When I’m with you—it’s always like a choice. A choice between you—and the rest of the world. I don’t want such a choice. I’m afraid because I want you too much—but I don’t want to give up everybody, everything. I want to be a part of the world. They like me, they recognize me now, I don’t want to be an outsider. There’s so much that’s beautiful in the world, and gay and simple and pleasant. It’s not all a fight and a renunciation. It doesn’t have to be. It is—with you.”
“What have I ever renounced?”
“Oh, you’ll never renounce anything. You’ll walk over corpses for what you want. But it’s what you’ve renounced by never wanting it. What you’ve closed your eyes to—what you were born with your eyes closed to.”
“Don’t you think that perhaps one can’t have one’s eyes open to both?”
“Everybody else can! Everybody but you. You’re so old, Howard. So old, so serious. . . . And there’s something else. What you said about my going after people. Look, Howard, don’t other people mean anything to you at all? I know, you like some of them and you hate others, but neither really makes much difference to you. That’s what’s horrifying. Everyone’s a blank around you. They’re there, but they don’t touch you in any way, not in any single way. You’re so closed, so finished. It’s unbearable. All of us react upon one another in some way, I don’t mean that we have to be slaves of others, or be influenced, or changed, no, not that, but we react. You don’t. We’re aware of others. You’re not. You don’t hate people—that’s the ghastliness of it. If you did—it would be simple to face. But you’re worse. You’re a fiend. You’re the real enemy of all mankind—because one can’t do anything against your kind of weapon—your utter, horrible, inhuman indifference!”
She stood waiting. She stood, as if she had slapped his face and triumphantly expected the answer. He looked at her. She saw that his lips were opening wide, his mouth loose, young, easy; she could not believe for a moment that he was laughing. She did not believe what he said either. He said:
“I’m sorry, Vesta.”
Then she felt frightened. He said very gently:
“I didn’t want it to come to this. I think I knew also that it would, from the first. I’m sorry. There are chances I shouldn’t take. You see—I’m weak, like everybody else. I’m not closed enough nor certain enough. I see hope sometimes where I shouldn’t. Now forget me. It will be easier than it seems to you right now.”
i think this line, not found in FH, is interesting (from the last para):
> I’m not closed enough nor certain enough.
for a great person, having lots of doubts and giving lots of chances to dumb stuff is bad. but lots of dumb ppl think they are great and should be less closed and certain.
PUZZLE TIME: what does this mean?
r/AskMyFaceJournalr
>> depression is like a virus affecting the mind. it's a set of memes that disable the rational part of the mind. it's like a software virus. it's an illness of software.
>
> A virus injects itself into your DNA. And your body has no means of preventing that or removing it afterwords.
The comparison made was with a software virus
> A static meme is adopted by a mind. And that mind (you) has the means of preventing that adoption and removing it afterwords (if adopted already).
It's adopted by a mind while disguised in an innocent piece of software. The mind is not aware it's a harmful meme and is not aware the static meme will disable reason. So it can't remove it afterwards.
> So viruses are not like static memes.
Static memes are like software viruses.
>It's adopted by a mind while disguised in an innocent piece of software. The mind is not aware it's a harmful meme and is not aware the static meme will disable reason. So it can't remove it afterwards.
you don't think minds can take steps towards the removal static memes? are we just at the mercy of them? nothing we can do? not our responsibility?
>>It's adopted by a mind while disguised in an innocent piece of software. The mind is not aware it's a harmful meme and is not aware the static meme will disable reason. So it can't remove it afterwards.
>
> you don't think minds can take steps towards the removal static memes? are we just at the mercy of them? nothing we can do? not our responsibility?
If reason is damaged, how would they?
what do you mean by "damaged"? do you think anyone has successfully rid themselves of a static meme?
do u think a static meme completely destroys the capacity for reason in a person? or does it just affect one particular area?
what if a person changes the *environment* / the attitude of their mind and they take responsibility for their ideas? do you think that has any affect on their static memes?
an additional thought re: the analogy to viruses:
you can get a flu shot which will help to defend you from viruses.
you can have high rational standards which will help defend you from static memes. your standards are way too high to fall for static memes.
another thought:
if you do contract a virus, your body can fight it and (usually) get rid of it.
if you do contract a static meme, your mind can fight it and get rid of it.
i don't see a problem with thinking of both entities as intruders. but it's important to understand that the body and the mind have the power and the *responsibility* to get rid of intruders.
edit: well, the body doesn't really have the responsibility, since I think responsibility comes from morality and choices.
but i don't think that affects my point
> an additional thought re: the analogy to viruses:
>
> you can get a flu shot which will help to defend you from viruses.
>
> you can have high rational standards which will help defend you from static memes. your standards are way too high to fall for static memes.
if you already have the flu, the shot won't work.
> do u think a static meme completely destroys the capacity for reason in a person? or does it just affect one particular area?
not one, but several. when you affect reason itself you affect all areas.
> what if a person changes the *environment* / the attitude of their mind and they take responsibility for their ideas? do you think that has any affect on their static memes?
how can they change if reason was damaged?
> if you do contract a virus, your body can fight it and (usually) get rid of it.
some virus are lethal.
my analogy was with software viruses destroying software. not biological viruses.
>do you think anyone has successfully rid themselves of a static meme?
if so, how did they do it?
>> what if a person changes the *environment* / the attitude of their mind and they take responsibility for their ideas? do you think that has any affect on their static memes?
>how can they change if reason was damaged?
let's say hypothetically for now a person finds a way to change the environment of their mind to being less passive and taking more responsibility. do you think that would affect the success of the static memes? do you think static memes evolved to thrive in a particular environment? or no?
> let's say hypothetically for now a person finds a way to change the environment of their mind to being less passive and taking more responsibility.
i don't think this is coherent.
changing the environment would mean things like being at a job instead of school, or being on vacation. or switching to reading a different genre of books.
but here you're mixing up the environment and the internal ideas of the mind.
i'm talking about the approach / the attitude to thinking. the conditions which a persons mind operates. and whether it's a attitude of passivity vs initiative and responsibilty
do you think a person has the ability to change that about themselves?
it's changeable, but it's one of the harder things to change. whereas environment, which is completely different, is one of the easier things to change.
so do you think changing your attitude / approach to one of being less passive will
affect the success of the static memes? do you think static memes evolved to thrive in a particular type of mind? or no?
yes, yes
so would you agree that static memes are NOT very powerful in mind which has decided to take initiative and responsibility for it's contents? static memes didn't evolve to thrive in this particular type of mind. they lose their grip and don't know how to survive well.
> which has decided to take initiative and responsibility for it's contents
it takes a lot more than deciding. takes LOTS of knowledge to do this right. it's SO easy to fool yourself.
knowledge can be created. it IS possible. for those who don't choose to do this, it is THEIR responsibility. would you agree with this?
>>person finds a way to change the environment of their mind to being less passive and taking more responsibility.
>i don't think this is coherent.
>changing the environment would mean things like being at a job instead of school, or being on vacation. or switching to reading a different genre of books.
why do you think switching to reading a different genre of books is a change of environment? is it because you've changed the ideas in your mind? the ideas you are reading about are now coming from a different genre. or is there some other reason?
i literally don't think you know what "environment" means
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/environment
> the conditions that surround someone or something : the conditions and influences that affect the growth, health, progress, etc., of someone or something
i actually don't think "environment of the mind" is that bad of a phrase to describe these methodological ideas which are what i'm talking about that have to do with your overall attitude and approach to ideas. its the meta-ideas / the conditions / the methods which affect your thinking. your progress. how you deal with conflicts.
being passive vs taking initiative can affect your methods. having that sort of "environment of your mind" makes a difference.
what's a better phrase for what i'm describing?
but anyways:
>why do you think switching to reading a different genre of books is a change of environment?
:>> what if a person changes the *environment* / the attitude of their mind and they take responsibility for their ideas? do you think that has any affect on their static memes?
>>
>>how can they change if reason was damaged?
>
> let's say hypothetically for now a person finds a way to change the environment of their mind to being less passive and taking more responsibility. do you think that would affect the success of the static memes? do you think static memes evolved to thrive in a particular environment? or no?
My argument was that if reason is damaged, it's damaged, it's gone. It's gone. Are you saying it's impossible to damage reason?
How can a person take more responsibility if they can't use reason anymore?
what makes you think that static memes have the knowledge to completely destroy the capacity for reason in a person?
where was all of the selection pressure for them to evolve that sort of knowledge? rather than the selection pressure to control lots and lots and lots of passive people. talk about a good way to get replicated in lots of minds - create knowledge to get really good at controlling passive people.
plus completely destroying the capacity for reason could backfire on the static memes and hurt their replication. like it could leave the host too dumb to do lots of stuff - e.g. live day-to-day life without dying accidentally.
the host doesn't need to live long for the meme to replicate.
viruses kill the host very quickly.
is your position that several static memes have the ability to completely disable a person's capacity for reason? it's gone. done for. no way for them to improve. no longer a universal knowledge creator.
and once this process has happened in a passive person, then the person is done for mentally. it is impossible for these ppl to start to take initiative (which would crowd out the static memes).
is this accurate so far?
asking again:
>why do you think switching to reading a different genre of books is a change of environment?
Daniel Eran Dilger Retweeted
Jennifer Booton ?@jbooton 7h7 hours ago
Fun fact: Apple's revenue growth was greater than actual revenues of 90% of Fortune 500 companies http://on.mktw.net/1PPgDKh $AAPL
It's as if anon WANTS it to be true that static memes do permanent damage to ones faculty of reason.
Like, that would make him feel better. So he wants it. Tries to argue it.
And you want it to be true that they don't. So it makes you feel better you have no compassion for others.
> And you want it to be true that they don't.
Lol so I was right.
And you're wrong. You think I believe what I want to believe because you believe what you want to believe. You're projecting.
how do you argue with someone who believes stuff by believing what he wants to believe rather than trying to find the truth?
Seems pointless.
First part of the first paragraph of the first essay on fallibleideas.com
> Reason (or rationality) is a tradition about how to think properly. It tries to avoid bias and find the truth **whether we like that truth or not**.
(Emphasis added)
Believing what you want to believe is backwards.
It means that your emotions say X is true, and then you try to justify X. (Which means ignoring rivals and criticism to X).
The correct way is to find the truth by ruling out rivals. And then if your emotions contradict, change them to be consistent with your explicit knowledge.
I was rereading what i wrote. Seems like emotions are floating abstractions.
Or at least, emotions are floating abstractions IF AND ONLY IF you don't try to find out if they are wrong (like by choosing your explicit ideas to match your emotions).
But I don't really have a handle on what floating abstractions are. I should talk about this on fi.
Believing what you want to believe is like following your tail.
>> And you want it to be true that they don't.
>
> Lol so I was right.
I didn't say yes. You made a dumb accusation. I replied in kind.
> how do you argue with someone who believes stuff by believing what he wants to believe rather than trying to find the truth?
Making accusation on other ppl's psychology is not an attempt to find the truth.
I can also accuse FI ppl of believing what they want to believe. All your ideas are very convenient for yourselves to believe. They save you from feeling guilt, responsibility, love, compassion, sadness, solidarity.
I don't think it was a dumb accusation. I think it was reasonable.
I think your return accusation was unreasonable. You said it only because you think my accusation was unreasonable.
> Making accusation on other ppl's psychology is not an attempt to find the truth.
Sure it is. It's an attempt to figure out why you are blocked from understanding that static memes only work if the person chooses passivity. And with reason he can choose to not be passive.
> I don't think it was a dumb accusation. I think it was reasonable.
In what way it helps paths forward?
> I think your return accusation was unreasonable. You said it only because you think my accusation was unreasonable.
I said it with a basis on the nature of the beliefs you have. Your ideas on selfishness, welfare, animal rights, love (or lack of it), etc. They are all very convenient for you.
Also, wouldn't not liking an idea and accepting it as truth conflict with what FI teaches? Why would you just dismiss the feeling? The feeling contains information. Accepting the truth with gritted teeth is not learning.
> Sure it is. It's an attempt to figure out why you are blocked from understanding that static memes only work if the person chooses passivity. And with reason he can choose to not be passive.
My argument is that he doesn't because reason is damaged to the point it can't get rid of the static memes. Like AIDS disable the immune system.
What's your explanation of why you think static memes cannot damage reason permanently?
> I can also accuse FI ppl of believing what they want to believe. All your ideas are very convenient for yourselves to believe. They save you from feeling guilt, responsibility, love, compassion, sadness, solidarity.
That's stupid. And backwards.
Your view renders guilt impossible. You believe that people are controlled by static memes. You believe they aren't guilty.
I believe they are guilty. They choose passivity.
Sadness and love? You think fi people can't be sad for people who live their lives passively? Wrong. I am sad for them. I'd be happy if they fix their problem.
Solidarity? This one makes no sense. Fi people haven't rid themselves of all their static memes. (I'm not speaking of any one particular person.) So, we all share the same type of problem, having static memes we need to fix. How is that not solidarity?
I meant other beliefs you have that save you from feeling guilt, etc. Not just this one.
What's your explanation of why you think static memes cannot damage reason permanently?
> My argument is that he doesn't because reason is damaged to the point it can't get rid of the static memes. Like AIDS disable the immune system.
I explained why biological viruses are not like static memes above. Did you reply to it?
> What's your explanation of why you think static memes cannot damage reason permanently?
Why would it? Are you thinking that the mind starts out able to change any of itself and then some new idea gets adopted and then the mind becomes unchangable? Why would that be the case?
Also you haven't addressed anons argument about how static memes evolved in an environment where there is no selective pressure to make the static memes work on people who choose to be active instead of passive.
You also haven't addressed anons argument about that static memes evolved for an environment, and if you change the environment, then the static meme doesn't work.
An example new environment is to change ones attitude towards responsibility. Towards rejecting passivity.
> I meant other beliefs you have that save you from feeling guilt, etc. Not just this one.
Example belief that you think an fi person holds because he wants it rather than because he has ruled out all known rivals?
> I explained why biological viruses are not like static memes above. Did you reply to it?
It wasn't me using the biological viruses analogy. I said static memes are like software viruses.
>> What's your explanation of why you think static memes cannot damage reason permanently?
>
> Why would it? Are you thinking that the mind starts out able to change any of itself and then some new idea gets adopted and then the mind becomes unchangable? Why would that be the case?
Why are you reversing the question so the burden of explanation is on me?
The mind is made of ideas, so bad ideas can destroy it. Like a virus can destroy a system.
Why do you think the mind is indestructible?
>> I meant other beliefs you have that save you from feeling guilt, etc. Not just this one.
>
> Example belief that you think an fi person holds because he wants it rather than because he has ruled out all known rivals?
My point is that those ideas are convenient to you. And your process of finding the truth is also convenient to you.
I am saying you are not immune to the thing you accuse me of.
I don't want to derail discussion by talking about other beliefs.
>> I don't think it was a dumb accusation. I think it was reasonable.
> In what way it helps paths forward?
It helps you recognize your mistake. Helps you not be passive about this issue. Helps you put yourself in a new environment, rendering your static memes inactive.
>> I think your return accusation was unreasonable. You said it only because you think my accusation was unreasonable.
> I said it with a basis on the nature of the beliefs you have. Your ideas on selfishness, welfare, animal rights, love (or lack of it), etc. They are all very convenient for you.
So you're agreeing with me that you believe stuff cause you want to believe it. But you contradicted me on this. What's going on?
> Also, wouldn't not liking an idea and accepting it as truth conflict with what FI teaches? Why would you just dismiss the feeling? The feeling contains information. Accepting the truth with gritted teeth is not learning.
Let's do a concrete example. Somebody says bob is ignorant. Bob interprets that as an insult. Bob gets mad. So the guy explains why it wasn't an insult. It was an attempt to help bob recognize a blind spot he has. It's was an attempt at helping rather than hurting.
Now, while Bob is hearing this explanation, before he understood it, he's mad. So his emotion says "calling me ignorant about X is bad". And the explanation he is given explains that "calling him ignorant about X is good".
So, if he believes what he wants to believe, he'll said with his anger. Rejecting the explanation given.
If he follows the truth whether he likes it or not, he'll agree with the explanation given (assuming he didn't make some other mistake). And then he'll stop being mad.
So, passivity would lead to staying angry. The static meme stays stove because it's still in the environment it was designed for.
And choosing reason, rejecting passivity, would lead to recognizing ones error and dissolving ones anger.
* stove = active
>> Example belief that you think an fi person holds because he wants it rather than because he has ruled out all known rivals?
> My point is that those ideas are convenient to you. And your process of finding the truth is also convenient to you.
Uh, so, you think scientists use the scientific method because it's convenient? Not because it's effective at finding the truth?
> > I explained why biological viruses are not like static memes above. Did you reply to it?
> It wasn't me using the biological viruses analogy. I said static memes are like software viruses.
Didn't you just like static memes to aids?
> It wasn't me using the biological viruses analogy. I said static memes are like software viruses.
That's wrong too. The software viruses you're thinking of are infecting computer software that is not universal knowledge creator.
Today's software is like a chess program. The best chess program can beat the best humans, but it can't learn tic tac toe. It can't learn new stuff. It can't change its mind.
None of this is true for people.
> The mind is made of ideas, so bad ideas can destroy it. Like a virus can destroy a system.
I explained to you how both your virus analogies (computer and biological) are not like static memes.
Why are you ignoring that?
>The software viruses you're thinking of are infecting computer software that is not universal knowledge creator.
Ya. Where is the explanation how static memes can render someone no longer a universal knowledge creator?
And how do you explain those people who HAVE rid themselves of some static memes? Do you deny that has ever happened? How would that sort of change even be possible if their capacity for reason was destroyed?
>> It wasn't me using the biological viruses analogy. I said static memes are like software viruses.
>
> Didn't you just like static memes to aids?
Yes. Because you or someone used the biological virus idea. I thought using that analogy would help understanding. Because it works.
> It wasn't me using the biological viruses analogy. I said static memes are like software viruses.
>
> That's wrong too. The software viruses you're thinking of are infecting computer software that is not universal knowledge creator.
Can't static memes be a special software designed to infect and damage a universal knowledge creator type of software?
> Today's software is like a chess program. The best chess program can beat the best humans, but it can't learn tic tac toe. It can't learn new stuff. It can't change its mind.
>
> None of this is true for people.
How do you know that people can learn anything?
>>It's as if anon WANTS it to be true that static memes do permanent damage to ones faculty of reason.
>>Like, that would make him feel better. So he wants it. Tries to argue it.
>And you want it to be true that they don't. So it makes you feel better you have no compassion for others.
This "compassion" you feel for others who are suffering from static memes is HURTING them. You are part of the problem where they stay stuck. You are telling them (and yourself) that it's not their responsibility and there is nothing they can do about their static memes. They are stuck with them. No improvement is possible. Continue shitty life 4ever. Why don't you tell them to suicide too, while you are at it?
You are like the feminists who scream "Oppression!". They are actually HURTING women with their message (while claiming to be compassionate or whatever).
> Can't static memes be a special software designed to infect and damage a universal knowledge creator type of software?
What would the selective pressure be in that evolutionary process? You'd have to explain that. So go ahead and explain.
> How do you know that people can learn anything?
Well, you and i learned English. So there's that. Your turn.
> And you want it to be true that they don't. So it makes you feel better you have no compassion for others.
So, by that you mean that if you suffer, you want me to suffer too? Why do you want me to suffer with you?
> Yes. Because you or someone used the biological virus idea. I thought using that analogy would help understanding. Because it works.
It's been explained how it doesn't work. Care to explain how we're wrong?
>You are telling them (and yourself) that it's not their responsibility and there is nothing they can do about their static memes. They are stuck with them. No improvement is possible. Continue shitty life 4ever. Why don't you tell them to suicide too, while you are at it?
More problems with your position include that it is based on a malevolent universe premise. You think suffering is the rule (not the exception). You think some problems are not soluble. You think life is a painful, teeth-clenched struggle against these static memes which can not be beaten. You think evil is POWERFUL, rather than impotent. The reason they seem powerful to you is because YOU are giving them their power.
AS:
>I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it.
> More problems with your position include that it is based on a malevolent universe premise. You think suffering is the rule (not the exception). You think some problems are not soluble. You think life is a painful, teeth-clenched struggle against these static memes which can not be beaten. You think evil is POWERFUL, rather than impotent. The reason they seem powerful to you is because YOU are giving them their power.
It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
If you believe demons and demon possessions are real, then at some point something will happen that you'll interpret as being possessed by a demon.
But if you don't believe in demons. Then you can never interpret some event as a demon possession.
If you believe that you're not a universal knowledge creator, then you won't try to think that way.
If you believe that you have genes that make you dumb, then you won't try to learn to be smart since you treat that as impossible.
If you believe that you are controlled by stuff like static memes or genes or human nature or anger or demons or whatever, then you'll act consistent with that belief. You won't try to break out of the control that you've imposed on yourself.
If you believe that when someone suffers, others should suffer too (ie compassion), then you will suffer when others suffer.
But if you don't believe that, then you won't.
Beliefs cause actions/emotions.
Beliefs can also cause certain actions and emotions to be prevented from occurring.
Another example.
If you believe that one should believe things he wants to believe, then he will believe stuff because he wants to believe it.
But if you believe that one should follow the truth whether he likes that truth or not, then he won't believe things because he wants to believe them.
Android development is 30% more expensive than iOS. And we have the numbers to prove it! ?
Written by Dave Mark
This detailed analysis is from a firm that does both Android and iOS development. Read the blog post, draw your own conclusions.
https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan/
the media is trash
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10464523
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10464523
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10464523
The Washington Cartel
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328980-2/us-senate-debate-budget-deal
Roosh is anti-semitic
http://blog.adl.org/anti-semitism/pick-up-artist-roosh-v-moves-from-misogyny-to-anti-semitism
http://www.returnofkings.com/62716/the-damaging-effects-of-jewish-intellectualism-and-activism-on-western-culture
Daniel Eran Dilger ?@DanielEran 3h3 hours ago
.@Amazon is not selling #AppleTV in hopes shoppers will buy its Fire TV. It should ask @Verizon how well that worked with the iPhone. $AAPL
> If you believe that you're not a universal knowledge creator, then you won't try to think that way.
> If you believe that you have genes that make you dumb, then you won't try to learn to be smart since you treat that as impossible.
> If you believe that you are controlled by stuff like static memes or genes or human nature or anger or demons or whatever, then you'll act consistent with that belief. You won't try to break out of the control that you've imposed on yourself.
This is like saying that if you don't believe in fairies they will die.
What matters is the truth.
> This is like saying that if you don't believe in fairies they will die.
Argument that it's like that?
Ted Cruz Retweeted
Adam Kredo ?@Kredo0 2h2 hours ago
.@tedcruz discloses CENTCOM report proving Iran directly killed nearly 200 US troops in Iraq, wounded nearly 1000 http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-responsible-for-killing-14-percent-of-u-s-troops-in-iraq/ …
George Reisman ?@GGReisman 8m8 minutes ago
The following is a 6-part tweet.
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like
More
George Reisman ?@GGReisman 8m8 minutes ago
A recent article in NY Times warns that in 12,000 years a melting Antarctic ice sheet will raise sea levels by 50m. http://bit.ly/1J5axgc
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like
More
George Reisman ?@GGReisman 9m9 minutes ago
Why are environmentalists more concerned with sea levels over the next 12,000 years than with our infrastructure over the next 10 years?
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like
More
George Reisman ?@GGReisman 9m9 minutes ago
Why are environmentalists more concerned with the lives of people centuries in the future than with the lives of people now living?
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like
More
George Reisman ?@GGReisman 9m9 minutes ago
What entitles environmentalists to sacrifice the prosperity of the living for the alleged benefit of remote generations in the future?
0 retweets 1 like
Reply Retweet
Like 1
More
George Reisman ?@GGReisman 10m10 minutes ago
The environmentalists’ program of sacrificing the present to the future is similar to the old Soviets’ program.
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like
More
George Reisman ?@GGReisman 10m10 minutes ago
The difference is that the environmentalists claim to be concerned with future millennia, while the Soviets stopped at grandchildren.
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 13m13 minutes ago
Ann Coulter Retweeted Mickey Kaus
Absolutely NO ONE understood that Cruz's riff on sugar subsides was an attack on Rubio.
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 4m4 minutes ago
Ann Coulter Retweeted Carter Hall
Q: What's the problem w/ Stimulus bill?
A: It does nothing @ job-killing govt regs
Paul: BILL SAYS 0 ABOUT GOVT REGS
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 54m54 minutes ago
Tor is having a fit of institutional pique that researchers are compromising the network's privacy guarantees by, well, looking at it.
0 retweets 1 like
Reply Retweet
Like 1
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 52m52 minutes ago
If you write security software, and you're not praying that loyal opposition hits you with everything they've got, you're not doing security
1 retweet 2 likes
Reply Retweet 1
Like 2
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 51m51 minutes ago
Tor is intended to be, and is marketed as, robust against nation state adversaries. It cannot possibly be so if it worries about academics.
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 1h1 hour ago
"Do you feel like you got anything out of working for a Japanese company?" Seasoning in productionizable engineering skills; good poker face
0 retweets 5 likes
Reply Retweet
Like 5
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 1h1 hour ago
I actually have a really terrible poker face when playing poker.
0 retweets 4 likes
Reply Retweet
Like 4
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 1h1 hour ago
I have a modestly better poker face when doing negotiations. Thomas says I can ask for the moon and stars with a straight face.
1 retweet 3 likes
Reply Retweet 1
Like 3
More
Patrick McKenzie ?@patio11 1h1 hour ago
It's not lying, per se, it's the hone (internal truth) being irrelevant to the tatamae (external truth) one has to represent in a situation.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/14/ted-cruz-boxes-marco-rubio-immigration/
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/11/14/donald-trump-was-elected-president-tonight-ann-coulter-has-a-lot-to-say-about-paris-attack-273642
How does one say “Illegal immigration is an act of love” in French?
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
How does one say “DREAMERS” in French?
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? French people ran onto the street with signs that said, ‘Je Suis Charlie’! Why didn’t that stop this? — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
Paris death toll up to 100. U.S. college students need to tell Parisians about real violence from Halloween costumes & “trigger words.” — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
ANGER? We can’t even deport 3rd world pouring in, committing murder, child rape, Ft Hood, 9/11 etc. It’s not “adult” https://t.co/Rg3HVtSTAQ
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
Diversity is a strength!
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
All we need is people rushing to the street with candles and we’ll have these savages on the run! https://t.co/Ipwm8xLS2K — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
Too bad there were no concealed carry permits … anywhere in Europe … since 1818. — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
Every year, the US imports 100K more Muslims to live here permanently. Rubio says he wants more. Why would anyone support him?
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
Can we all agree now? No more Muslim immigration. How is this making life better for us? But the mass immigration machine churns on …
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
What’s the upside of letting millions of Muslims migrate to western countries? — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
100% of TV talk is @ fighting ISIS–IN SYRIA. Bomb away, but isn’t there something else we should consider? Like not letting ISIS move here? — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
TRUMP 2016! https://t.co/w0UBlnF6CK
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
Why does NO ONE say the obvious thing on TV?! It’s insane. Don’t want terrorism in US? Stop importing Muslims!
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
They can wait if they like until next November for the actual balloting, but Donald Trump was elected president tonight. — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015
The Onion ?@TheOnion 10m10 minutes ago
‘Seek Funding’ Step Added To Scientific Method http://onion.com/1SqsoVb
http://louderwithcrowder.com/ted-cruz-like-youve-never-seen-throws-gauntlet-on-refugees/
well, i tried
Elliot Temple ?@curi42 1m1 minute ago
Parable of vases is trivially solved by hiring right number of people for each type of job. @AnnCoulter
http://curi.us/1809-the-parable-of-the-vases …
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like View Tweet activity
More
Elliot Temple ?@curi42 1m1 minute ago
Parable of vases is unrealistic scenario with incompetent factory management. Toy #flawgic. @AnnCoulter
http://curi.us/1809-the-parable-of-the-vases …
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like View Tweet activity
More
Elliot Temple ?@curi42 4m4 minutes ago
I know you're a great scholar @AnnCoulter, so do your homework on parable of vases details. http://curi.us/1809-the-parable-of-the-vases …
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like View Tweet activity
More
Elliot Temple ?@curi42 7m7 minutes ago
how about instead of immigration, we have a few top ppl emigrate to run other countries? better system? @AnnCoulter
http://curi.us/1809-the-parable-of-the-vases …
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like View Tweet activity
More
Elliot Temple ?@curi42 8m8 minutes ago
Don't be fooled @AnnCoulter, the "parable of the vases" is a bad argument (for a good conclusion). http://curi.us/1809-the-parable-of-the-vases …
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like View Tweet activity
More
Elliot Temple ?@curi42 29m29 minutes ago
.@AnnCoulter the "parable of the vases" is actually about how much excess vase packing labor you hire which is idle. it's a dirty math trick
common trend
what is the common trend that exist in fi, and shouldn't info be simplified?
p.s. I'm not a reader
> what is the common trend that exist in fi, and
"the common trend"? what are you talking about?
> shouldn't info be simplified?
depends on your context (problem-situation). sometimes you have some info that should be simplified, and sometimes there's no reason to simply it further.
Ann Coulter ?@AnnCoulter 11m11 minutes ago
Juan Williams on viewer Q: How can we vet thousands of Syrian "refugees" when we can't even find millions of illegal aliens? A: XENOPHOBIA!
Frank J. Fleming ?@IMAO_ 20s20 seconds ago
You can be for allowing citizens to have guns or for the government using guns to keep people from having them. Neither is truly anti-gun.
here is a good trump vs cruz example:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/04/trump-blames-geller-for-being-attacked-by-jihadis-what-is-she-doing-drawing-muhammad/
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-garland-free-speech
Ann Coulter Retweeted
Trumpologist ?@UnderstandTrump Jan 5
To all those people saying "If Trump wins, I'm moving to Canada", smile and ask them, "Oh? Why not Mexico?"
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/01/facebooks-dishonesty-regarding-jews-muslims-israelis-palestinians/
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/01/facebooks-dishonesty-regarding-jews-muslims-israelis-palestinians/
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/01/facebooks-dishonesty-regarding-jews-muslims-israelis-palestinians/
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/01/facebooks-dishonesty-regarding-jews-muslims-israelis-palestinians/
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/01/facebooks-dishonesty-regarding-jews-muslims-israelis-palestinians/
so tomorrow is the day that me not making an urgent sacrificial South Carolina gift ruins Cruz's momentum because he can't do this without me, and dooms our country?
he needs 6 figures ASAP to hit back! (his 8 figure warchest isn't enough because people are hitting him with 7 figure ad buys in SC! and not only that, but his resources are drained from NH where he spent 6 figures!)
(not a fan of Cruz's begging for money tactics)
> (not a fan of Cruz's begging for money tactics)
Any ideas how he could do better at getting money?
> Any ideas how he could do better at getting money?
idk much about campaign finance laws. i think those might be a big problem here. setting that aside:
Cruz is the best candidate running for President. there are a LOT of rich people. why doesn't someone who wants to really help the country give him 50 million? way worse causes get tons of money all the time. maybe Cruz should focus more on getting a few really big contributions instead of *lying* to get a bunch of small ones. the big ones can be gotten by telling the truth.
> there are a LOT of rich people. why doesn't someone who wants to really help the country give him 50 million?
Campaign finance laws are a big problem with doing that directly. Limits are a lot lower than 50 million, details here: http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516.pdf
A rich person could create or donate 50 million to a superPAC whose purpose is to get Cruz elected, but the superPAC can't coordinate efforts with the candidate / candidate's campaign, can't have the candidate speak at its events or specifically for its ads, can't be solicited by the candidate, etc.
And there's important risks to the rich person beyond the obvious one of losing both the 50 million and the election. Most rich people are rich because they have active business interests, not just bunches of money sitting around. Those interests can be harmed by media / rivals out of spite. If the election is lost, the winners can use government power to harm the rich person's business interests too.
And I think "a LOT" of rich people in this context is overstating. There's really not that many people with 50 million they could prudently spare on a political campaign. I doubt it would be prudent to put more than 1% of one's net worth or 10% of one's annual income into a political campaign - how many people with 5 billion dollars net worth or 500 million annual income are there?
That said, I'd be shocked if Cruz isn't already massively focusing on the big ones to the degree he can. You can't see that focus from the outside - which is intentional. Prospective big donors ("whales") aren't solicited the same way, by the same people / tactics as the small donors ("minnows"). Communications to them are private and personal.
Conventional wisdom of campaign fundraising, which Cruz seems to be following, is to hire a firm to do the type of shit he's doing with minnows + targeted personal fundraising with whales. It's not either-or, it's both. But all the candidate's time is spent on the whales.
In the context of the current campaign finance laws I don't know of anything he could do that he's probably not already doing.
get rekt, govt
https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/Orenstein-Order-Apple-iPhone-02292016.pdf
> under the circumstances of this case, the government has failed to establish either that the AWA permits the relief it seeks or that, even if such an order is authorized, the discretionary factors I must consider weigh in favor of granting the motion. More specifically, the established rules for interpreting a statute's text constrain me to reject the government's interpretation that the AWA empowers a court to grant any relief not outright prohibited by law.
re apple, FBI. Blizzard didn't put LAN mode in sc2. No exception even for blizzard's own tournaments. too much risk of being hacked (so ppl could pirate the game and make their own sc2 servers, like they did with war3) if LAN functionality existed at all. too hard for blizzard to keep control of the feature if it exists at all. so they just didn't let it exist, despite large inconvenience. (it used to be really really bad before there was a resume from replay feature. internet problems still disrupt LAN tournaments now but at least they can restore the game state.)
from http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/03/15/sts-wwdc
> What follows is an unordered list of things I’d like to see from Apple over the next few years, starting with the easy and obvious things upfront.
ppl fucking hate precision
many new apple things today. the environmentalism was dumb tho. and the autism app. they wanna diagnose kids at age 1.5 :(
the other things were nice.
now u can use Apple Pencil for $700 total, down from $900.
cheaper ipad air and watch. 4" phones are basically the 6s in a smaller case, half a year late, and 2 tiers down on price. good deal. i like 4.7" tho.
is the autism app made by apple? is it moral to support a company who makes such a terrible thing?
Apple is a tool maker. Apple doesn't directly deal with autism.
Why was the autism app mentioned then, was it advertised by Apple? Does Apple support autism awareness.
What is with the autism fad, I don't get it.
if you care, watch the event or read a liveblog summary or something. if you don't care, then don't talk about it.
if you have a criticism of "the autism fad", write it.
i have a piece of bacon in my house named mohammad that i think might be a suicide bomber. if i eat the bacon, will my stomach acid dissolve the bomb?
>i have a piece of bacon in my house named mohammad that i think might be a suicide bomber. if i eat the bacon, will my stomach acid dissolve the bomb?
wtf
Anon 5:47pm you might want to try stuffing the bacon in some other food first before you eat it.
> i have a piece of bacon in my house named mohammad that i think might be a suicide bomber. if i eat the bacon, will my stomach acid dissolve the bomb?
A piece of bacon is not a person, and so can't be a suicide bomber. If you want to eat bacon, you should be honest about that and think about why.
If you're joking, then you should know that joking is an unclear way to communicate.
you could read my story and discuss it instead or discussing terrorist bacon.
Discuss LG's Story.
She won't be Anti-FI anymore.
lies
> lies
which part?
quoting from:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/16402
> for example, many people don't like a woman to be too aggressive. they will complain about aggression.
elliot doesn't like me when i'm aggressive either. or what he interprets to be aggressive.
some things that are just normal for males to do are interpreted as aggressive for women to do.
From: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/16408
> it's important for females to be VERY VERY clear if they really don't want to have sex and consider it rape
is Elliot saying he will take advantage of females who do not know to be clear and do not say exactly "stop! rape!"
what if these females want go an extra layer in their roleplay? wasn't sarah the type who enjoyed it not being clear if it was real rape or not?
will he take advantage of females who evade?
will he take advantage of weak females who are weak and who do not stand for themselves and think they deserve to be punished with rape?
does he want to be that person?
(and why is he saying female here, why not women?)
does Elliot seriously expect for women to know the code the exact words that would make them stop raping them?
if things are not clear, why do it? he's not speaking of why men like angry sex. he's only blaming women.
if things are clear that what's everyone want, then why pretend the male is dominant?
> elliot doesn't like me when i'm aggressive either. or what he interprets to be aggressive.
and your implication is that elliot is ok with males being aggressive. but you didn't say that. why not?
if that's what you think, then you should have argued your case (why you think elliot is ok with males being aggressive).
> From: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/16408
>> it's important for females to be VERY VERY clear if they really don't want to have sex and consider it rape
> is Elliot saying he will take advantage of females who do not know to be clear and do not say exactly "stop! rape!"
no.
> what if these females want go an extra layer in their roleplay? wasn't sarah the type who enjoyed it not being clear if it was real rape or not?
right, and elliot (or if i remember correctly, it was Alan) said that what sarah is doing is bad BECAUSE she's making it harder to differentiate between consent and non-consent.
> will he take advantage of females who evade?
you seem completely oblivious to the possibility that elliot has no intention of having sex.
> will he take advantage of weak females who are weak and who do not stand for themselves and think they deserve to be punished with rape?
you seem to not even be trying to criticize your own ideas. you're not trying to come up with other possible interpretations (besides the first one you came up with) of the text you're reading.
> does he want to be that person?
> (and why is he saying female here, why not women?)
why women instead of females?
> and your implication is that elliot is ok with males being aggressive. but you didn't say that. why not?
because i made no such implication. you made that implication yourself.
> you seem completely oblivious to the possibility that elliot has no intention of having sex.
why support PUA then?
does it matter what he does with his body, if he encouraging men to be PUA?
if a person supports the death penalty, does it matter if he never killed anyone with their own hands?
> you seem to not even be trying to criticize your own ideas. you're not trying to come up with other possible interpretations (besides the first one you came up with) of the text you're reading.
Rami, is that you?
You can't know how many interpretations I came up with.
I wonder if Leo knows what aggressive means, or rather what Elliot means by aggressive.
I'd contrast it against assertive.
To be assertive is to state your wants openly. This is good. It helps find cps.
To be aggressive is to use force or pressuring tactics to get what you want against the will of the person you're dealing with. So it's a no cp.
> if things are not clear, why do it?
Elliot is against things being unclear.
> he's not speaking of why men like angry sex. he's only blaming women.
You seem to take Elliot's ideas and interpret them as if you've never heard him say anything else.
Eg Elliot is against like a bf and gf being angry at each other. Better to find cps. Yet somehow you think Elliot is ok with angry sex? Why didn't you rule that out as a mistaken interpretation?
> You seem to take Elliot's ideas and interpret them as if you've never heard him say anything else.
no, i spot his inconsistencies and contradictions.
i'm not going to pretend "oh, he must mean something else" to lie to myself and others. no.
he bans people for life. what's the fallible interpretation of this?
btw, where's my ban for life? i just outed rami.
forgot to sign again at http://curi.us/comments/show/5662
fuck this blog and the stupid comment system. can't even fucking loging. only the owner.
want to talk to me, come to my blog. don't want to talk to me, fuck you.
i want my public permaban for life announcement though. make it very public.
> no, i spot his inconsistencies and contradictions.
But you didn't spot one. All you noticed was Elliot didn't mention a criticism. Just because somebody doesn't say something is wrong that doesn't mean he thinks it's right.
> btw, where's my ban for life? i just outed rami.
You're confused. Somehow you think a permanent ban contradicts fallibility. You're wrong.
Just because there is a possibility that you change your mind that doesn't imply that Elliot should use his resources to try to get that possibility to happen.
I understand his permanent ban idea to mean that he's no longer willing to invest any more resources to helping you change your mind.
> you didn't spot one
i spotted many i posted about in my blog
> Just because there is a possibility that you change your mind that doesn't imply that Elliot should use his resources to try to get that possibility to happen.
you put this in a very strange way, Rami.
the part that supports infallibility is that if i become great or greater than him, he doesn't care.
he's acting on the knowledge that he thinks i won't change.
so he believes some people can't change.
he has knowledge he is not sharing to make this decision.
and he thinks he won't lose from this ban.
what happened to sarah and dd when elliot was banned from the tcs list? what happened to tcs?
maybe i'm not important, but what if he bans the one person who could criticize him?
if sarah and dd could understand how smart elliot was and how much he would benefit the progress of their ideas, would they have banned me?
or maybe they did understand and just passed the torch. "tcs is now in good hands"
except dd hasn't actually retired.
don't know. don't care.
> the part that supports infallibility is that if i become great or greater than him, he doesn't care.
no.
you're not going to become great or greater than elliot while you're not learning from the best people (FI people).
> he's acting on the knowledge that he thinks i won't change.
no. he's acting on the knowledge that he shouldn't spend any more effort on getting you to change, e.g. reading an email from you saying that you have changed, or want to change, or whatever.
> no.
>
> you're not going to become great or greater than elliot while
> you're not learning from the best people (FI people).
this makes no sense. i can learn whatever elliot learned.
>> you're not going to become great or greater than elliot while you're not learning from the best people (FI people).
> this makes no sense. i can learn whatever elliot learned.
you don't make sense. i wasn't talking about what CAN happen.
> no. he's acting on the knowledge that he shouldn't spend any more effort on getting you to change, e.g. reading an email from you saying that you have changed, or want to change, or whatever.
if he is not so great to put the effort in changing people, then FI is useless. why say he wants to teach ppl?
he is fascinated with your daughters now, but all kids are curious when young. they learn a lot when young because they know very little.
he won't know what to do when the children grow and start giving up, as everyone does.
he has given up as well, it's just that he learned a lot when young. he is stuck himself, and uninterested in learning himself, that's why he is desperate to find someone smarter than him. but in the other hand his pride gets in his way.
if he ever find ppl that are already great, they will have learned without his effort. because he doesn't know how to help them.
maybe he could help me leave FI and be happy, i'm tired of this conflict myself.
i on't belong in FI and i don't belong anywhere. there's no rest of the world for me.
and who was the cunt who said my story is shitty? why hurt me? i'm in my corner being happy and you hurt me. fuck you.
> if he is not so great to put the effort in changing people, then FI is useless. why say he wants to teach ppl?
lol. what makes you think he wants to teach EVERYBODY? he doesn't. he wants to work with people he considers worth helping.
> he won't know what to do when the children grow and start giving up, as everyone does.
elliot gave up? or are you saying elliot WILL give up?
what's your reasoning? i bet you have none.
> he has given up as well
ELLIOT CLOSED THE FI DISCUSSION GROUP?!?!??! OMG!!!
oh wait, it's still there. nm
>>> you're not going to become great or greater than elliot while you're not learning from the best people (FI people).
>>
>> this makes no sense. i can learn whatever elliot learned.
>
> you don't make sense. i wasn't talking about what CAN happen.
you're focused on words and not ideas.
if can learn whatever elliot learned by himself i can become great or greater. i can learn without "FI" people (who are his followers anyway).
>>>> you're not going to become great or greater than elliot while you're not learning from the best people (FI people).
>>> this makes no sense. i can learn whatever elliot learned.
>> you don't make sense. i wasn't talking about what CAN happen.
> you're focused on words and not ideas.
no. you're confusing what CAN happen and what's EXPECTED to happen.
Anon(s) who is/are arguing with Leo, why bother?
> Anon(s) who is/are arguing with Leo, why bother?
you're right. i'm not getting anything out of it. i'm done.
>> if he is not so great to put the effort in changing people, then FI is useless. why say he wants to teach ppl?
>
> lol. what makes you think he wants to teach EVERYBODY? he doesn't. he wants to work with people he considers worth helping.
you seem to consider it worthwhile wasting your time arguing with me, yet you do not consider me worthwhile. contradiction.
i think it's bad he puts himself in a teacher position. it's bad people act like his students. i do not understand why he is doing this.
what i said is that the ppl he currently considers worth it might not be worth it. they might be worth it now, and change later. they can get worse. then what?
if he doesn't know how to fix the worst, he won't know how to help the best either.
he still wastes time with DD while going on how dead he is. does he still consider DD worthwhile?
btw, i predicted you would stop talking to me, Rami. you denied it at the time.
>> you're focused on words and not ideas.
>
> no. you're confusing what CAN happen and what's EXPECTED to happen.
expected is even worse. it implies more infallibility.
wait i got another idea. so i'm not done yet.
just because you CAN win the lotto, that doesn't mean you're EXPECTED to win. so just because you CAN win the lotto, that doesn't mean you SHOULD play the lotto.
>> Anon(s) who is/are arguing with Leo, why bother?
>
> you're right. i'm not getting anything out of it. i'm done.
that was a quick change of mind. not even an attempt at persuasion.
what did you expect to get?
agreement when i don't agree?
easy discussion where you win quickly?
do you want to learn?
does elliot want to learn? no, he wants to teach.
what for?
when he became better than DD, did DD become his student?
will he become lulu's student?
i already criticized not being expected (by FI people) to become great if not learning from FI people (not of them wise except elliot, so why say fi people, others only give elliot material to discuss).
the reason that your expectation is wrong is that i can learn on my own like elliot learned on his own. so i can become great even if fi ppl don't expect it.
your argument is that it's like winning the lottery. it can happen but it's not expected to happen. learning is nothing like winning the lottery.
you think if i'm banned from FI i won't ever learn. but learning comes from self-initiative.
> I got 99 problems but a Leo ain't one
you're nasty to me and then you want me to be persuaded you're the best ppl to learn from?
>you're nasty to me and then you want me to be persuaded you're the best ppl to learn from?
You must have me confused for someone else.
I think you're a hostile, dangerous, immoral person and don't really give a shit what you do.
Elliot is very much conventional when it comes to being nasty and mean to others.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/16414
> on curi blog leo reveals an anonymous person’s identity
how exactly did i reveal it? the person didn't tell me or confess it to others here. i can be wrong. if that person posts again, nobody will know who it is.
i did attempt to reveal. i guess elliot is protecting the weak who would confess under pressure. why does he protect the weak? i thought he didn't care for the weak.
>> you're nasty to me and then you want me to be persuaded you're the best ppl to learn from?
>
> You must have me confused for someone else.
all of you.
> I think you're a hostile, dangerous, immoral person and don't really give a shit what you do.
explanation not necessary?
i disagree with your judgement.
> Elliot is very much conventional when it comes to being nasty and mean to others.
no, he's far more hardcore. check one of his latest twitter conversations.
>no, he's far more hardcore. check one of his latest twitter conversations.
"Tim Cook hijacking Ann Frank for modern leftist politics. Gross!" This one?
why are you attacking me? you are protecting elliot from criticism as you do it?
being loyal followers won't help him learn.
nobody has anything to say about the inconsistencies i posted about in my blog? you don't care? you don't wonder yourselves?
"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!" or this one?
>> no, he's far more hardcore. check one of his latest twitter conversations.
>
> "Tim Cook hijacking Ann Frank for modern leftist politics. Gross!" This one?
that was good, it took me a while to get what he was doing as i don't do politics.
but i mean the convo with the other guy hold on.
the convo with jon burchel
quoting from twitter is a mess!
what is more interesting about this convo is how this jon dude also provides evidence DD is not on the side of reason anymore:
> Ya'll should have a party together then, and don't invite me or Dr. Deutsch!
jon burchel again:
> lol not every comment needs to be an argument Elliot...
this is so jim taggart talking it's uncanny
and ppl say rand didn't write natural dialogs
liars all of them
the prob of this dialog is that it's more elliot pwning the guy. it's elliot using pua technique not cps.
Anyone having time should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhZDEiwll8A
Mark Pellegrino a classical liberal, objectivist.
He is really smart.
Mr.Temple you should create another FI Unformatted Part 2 or something. This thread is so full.
edited version of elliot dialog with comments:
> Jon Burchel: I always thought you were too disagreeable Elliot. I think you misunderstood him then. He is good.
what is being "too disagreeable"? one is allowed to disagree a little?
> Elliot Temple: you aren't giving an argument and don't know context.
he doesn't know elliot is one of the ppl DD respected. he's on the aknowledgments (aka dumb ppl who co-wrote the book with me but get no royalties)
> Jon Burchel: I'm just making an observation, yes. I have enough context to form an opinion. You were unnecessarily acerbic, as I've seen before.
>
> Elliot Temple: being unwilling to make public arguments, and deal with critical replies, is a flaw you share with DD
>
> Jon Burchel: lol not every comment needs to be an argument Elliot...
So Jim Taggart.
> Elliot Temple: you *laugh* about attacking me without providing the details by which i could improve. you are *mean* in addition to irrational
>
> Jon Burchel: I suggest you lighten up as your first course correction to improve. :)
this is so bad. i'd go livid. he is attacking elliot and trying to make elliot look insane while pretending to be nice. he is playing the nice friendly guy who chills and doesn't take anything seriously... like it was a virtue.
this is why perhaps i can't get rid of anger. anger is a warning something is wrong. i can respect anger. i get suspicious of myself when i'm happy, afraid i'm "lightening up". giving in, giving up. when you're happy you are letting your soul be taken. it won't be painful if you won't resist.
> Elliot Temple: You're giving pro-convention advice I've heard before without explanation or useful details. You're not helping and know it.
>
> Jon Burchel: Elliot, it's like my good sense mom used to tell me. Don't make it so fun for people to give you a hard time and they won't...
he's a mummy boy as well, so conventionally "virtuous".
and he confesses he was attacking!
> Elliot Temple: You're not trying to help, you're trying to put on a show to pretend you're rational in reply to my points. You're a bad person
It's so much worse than that. :(
He's trying to corrupt you.
> Jon Burchel: Sorry you feel that way. Glad your judgement has no impact!
Insults Elliot as someone nobody cares to listen.
Elliot's judgement does influence people. People want to learn from him.
He has kids learning from him.
> Elliot Temple: you could save your life if you tried to improve, but you are refusing.
Maybe he can't.
> Jon Burchel: lol I've saved it so far and have no intention of stopping. Are you threatening me?
I don't think he understood Elliot. Elliot doesn't mean "staying alive" physically but saving one's mind.
> Elliot Temple: you don't want to live, don't value life, and are destroying yourself.
See what I mean about Elliot meanness? These are not conventional insults.
> Jon Burchel: wow... you are unhinged man. I really love life, value it more highly than any other phenomenon I know of, and in great health.
I don't get why he adds "and in great health". Maybe he interpreted "destroying yourself" as pointing out some unhealthy habit he has?
again, he doesn't understand it's about his mind.
"but i do eat salads and exercise, i'm not destroying myself"
> Elliot Temple: all of your tweets are shouting you hate life, reason, thinking and me. you have a big problem you are evading.
>
> Jon Burchel: haha, evaded big problems aside, I challenge you to find one person who backs that claim in their interpretation. Don't be so creepy
evaded big problems aside? what does he mean? does he confess he evades big problems?
elliot is not your conventional creepy.
> Elliot Temple: judging ideas by their popularity is irrational. nevertheless @j_mallone will agree with me. so will @alan_forrester.
Elliot tags Justin and Alan who do agree with him. Jon thought Elliot had no friends or no other person in the world would judge him like Elliot did.
It's said nobody agreed with Galileo either. So why does he make this argument?
> Jon Burchel: @curi42 @j_mallone @alan_forrester Ya'll should have a party together then, and don't invite me or Dr. Deutsch!
DD is happy to have this person as a fan.
I remember on the TCS chat he was pressuring someone to write a review of his book (Fabric of Reality back then) and give him 5 stars. the person didn't know what to write and DD said "write anything". DD also cared tons someone gave him a bad review.
as long as he has fans, he doesn't care who they are.
> Elliot Temple: you lost own challenge, 2x, & absolutely refuse to reconsider anything. just flame more. #irrational
ya.
> Mr.Temple you should create another FI Unformatted Part 2 or something. This thread is so full.
Mr. Anonymous, perhaps you should join the discussion list?
> Mr. Anonymous, perhaps you should join the discussion list?
gud idea Ms.Gomes
Leonor Temple
>Leonor Temple
wtf
ok, ok
wtf wtf
that guy you linked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhZDEiwll8A
he chose to be an actor. yet he says:
"got to be the most boring boring subject matter on the planet"
seriously? so he hates being an actor?
he thinks actors who speak of their work with passion are boring?
did he fucking became an actor to be famous to then be a politician?
and this is someone howard roark quality? think not.
a minute hasn't passed yet in the video.
> that guy you linked
Crit his ideas not what he did.
He is very successful.
Just like Elliot has his flaws the guy in the video may have it too.
Unimportant flaws.
>> Mr. Anonymous, perhaps you should join the discussion list?
>
> gud idea Ms.Gomes
don't do anything i do or you'll be banned. be a good student.
be like lulu. they like lulu.
>> Leonor Temple
>
> wtf
lol no idea what went into that person's mind
why not Elliot Gomes?
> why not Elliot Gomes?
wtf
> be like lulu. they like lulu.
Don't talk about a child here.
Naming people in a discussion isn't cool.
Rami Mallone
>> that guy you linked
>
> Crit his ideas not what he did.
what i'm criting are his ideas. something he said.
> He is very successful.
so are many evil ppl.
> Just like Elliot has his flaws the guy in the video may have it too.
>
> Unimportant flaws.
argument they are unimportant?
>> be like lulu. they like lulu.
>
> Don't talk about a child here.
>
> Naming people in a discussion isn't cool.
why?
Lulu signs as Lulu on Fi list.
> so are many evil ppl.
I don't like this FI thing of calling everyone evil without much thought.
You have to be significantly bad to be considered evil.
>> why not Elliot Gomes?
>
> wtf
how come they are both on the same wtf level? i think elliot gomes is more offensive. like he married me and took my surname. he is the one who has to say "stop! rape!
> Lulu signs as Lulu on Fi list.
You need her written consent.
> how come they are both on the same wtf level? i think elliot gomes is more offensive. like he married me and took my surname. he is the one who has to say "stop! rape!
The guy said Leonor Temple not Elliot Gomes.
>> Lulu signs as Lulu on Fi list.
>
> You need her written consent.
i need her written consent to tell a new person joining fi that it's a good idea to write like her?
> i need her written consent to tell a new person joining fi that it's a good idea to write like her?
Yeahhhh
Get a lawyer
> "The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!" or this one?
I didn't write that. Trump wrote that.
> Mr.Temple you should create another FI Unformatted Part 2 or something. This thread is so full.
I don't understand. How is it full? What's the problem? You can just keep writing more.
Leonor Ban
Leonor wrote in reply to an anonymous poster:
> Rami, is that you?
and later
> btw, where's my ban for life? i just outed rami.
Leonor is hereby banned from all my forums for initiating force three times against anonymous posters despite severe warnings. Leonor is dangerous and there is no way for her to continue to participate that would keep other posters safe.
Any further posts by Leonor, under her name or anonymously, will be considered initiation of force. Attempts by Leonor to contact me (e.g. email) will be considered initiation of force.
teacher crit
two similar Elliot crits:
> i think it's bad he puts himself in a teacher position. it's bad people act like his students. i do not understand why he is doing this.
> ur trying to "educate" me or recruit me or something. I discuss things to learn stuff not to be "educated
> Leonor Ban
You do know that she was breaking rules to get banned right?
You should have forgiven her.
She would have failed in her attempt to get banned.
She would change her mind after she cools down.
If you had forgiven all of her mistakes you could have learned from her.
It is a price you need to pay to get crits from her.
she used force.
I just read your reddit discussion.
It inspired me a lot.
cool, why?
> cool, why?
I feel like reading The Myth of Mental Illness after reading your discussion.
How would you rate the difficulty of this book?
pretty high difficulty. most of his other books are easier.
>Leonor is hereby banned from all my forums for initiating force three times against anonymous posters despite severe warnings.
why is this initiation of force? initiation of force sounds like it has to be physical in some way
look up "fraud" to start with
>pretty high difficulty. most of his other books are easier.
He has written too many books.
Which one is the easiest one to read?
Yaron Brook - President, Ayn Rand Institute
Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDk4iZmsW2Q
easiest szasz book
The easiest Szasz book to read,, and one that gives an overview of his ideas, is "The Medicalisation of Everyday Life".
anti-semite
> Yaron Brook - President, Ayn Rand Institute
is this a suggestion for a good person? i already know about him. he sucks.
> anti-semite
Wut?
Szasz is anti-semite?
> The easiest Szasz book to read,, and one that gives an overview of his ideas, is "The Medicalisation of Everyday Life".
Thanks for the info.
Does anybody have a PDF version of this book online?
> is this a suggestion for a good person? i already know about him. he sucks.
He represents Ayn Rand for the whole world.
Shouldn't he be good to be in that position?
Why isn't he fired yet?
Brook is the anti-semite
> He represents Ayn Rand for the whole world.
> Shouldn't he be good to be in that position?
> Why isn't he fired yet?
ARI sucks. peikoff sucks. the board of ARI sucks.
they kicked out Reisman who was better than them.
ARI never does much of anything good.
Ayn Rand chose Leonard Peikoff.
Is Rand wrong?
Why did she choose Peikoff if he sucked?
people are hard to judge. it's something Rand had a hard time with (see e.g. Branden).
Peikoff was better while Rand was around and guiding him. he always had some fundamental problems. he got a lot worse over time without Rand correcting him repeatedly.
she didn't have any great candidates to choose. it's fucking hard to find anyone who's any good at philosophy.
> he got a lot worse over time without Rand correcting him repeatedly.
Why don't you try to correct and teach Peikoff & Branden instead of teaching idiots philosophy?
Branden is dead
& Peikoff is intellectually dead
they don't want to listen or learn. they talk to prestigious people and don't make progress.
i've tried talking with some "smart" "intellectuals" like Aubrey de Grey, Alex Epstein, Harry Binswanger and Scott Aaronson. They didn't want to think.
the good ones were DD before he gave up and Szasz. i don't know of any other living person with a significant public reputation who is even close.
one of their problems is none of them know both Rand and Popper. most people know neither so they are fucked.
> They didn't want to think
Does already knowing a lot make thinking harder?
Will you stop thinking at some point?
lots of people learn as kids and then stop learning much at some point around age 15-30.
lots of people will learn about something as long as it seems easy and fun and they aren't really trying, and then get stuck and give up once it stops feeling so easy.
Leonor Gomes needs a second chance..
She has the habit of rage quitting.
She is a genius when she is not angry.
You need to teach her to not get angry instead of banning her.
She wanted to get permabanned that's why she violated the rules.
She has no other reason to break the rules.
she had 3 chances regarding outing people alone. she also had several chances regarding other things. all in all, she's had about 15 chances.
>[Leo] is a genius when she is not angry.
lol
>You need to teach her to not get angry instead of banning her.
if she's a genius, why can't she teach herself?
>She has no other reason to break the rules.
she gets angry and wants to hurt people. she does things on purpose to hurt people
> she gets angry and wants to hurt people. she does things on purpose to hurt people
that's because she wants to hurt herself
> that's because she wants to hurt herself
Explain that.
Hurt others to hurt yourself?
(people who)
>Hurt others to hurt yourself?
hurting others always hurts yourself. hurting others is what a bully does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
why would anyone want to interact with bullies?
> why would anyone want to interact with bullies?
The bully is a long time FI member and has been with you people from a long time.
Shouldn't she be pardoned when you know her from a long time?
She is like an FI Permanent family member.
How would you enforce the ban on her anyway?
You wouldn't block her IP.
She can still comment here.
Look at the things she could have done instead of what she has done.
She could have spammed FI list.
She could have made an alias to post.
> The bully is a long time FI member and has been with you people from a long time.
>
> Shouldn't she be pardoned when you know her from a long time?
>
> She is like an FI Permanent family member.
If she has been around for a long time and is still a bully, she hasn't learned much from FI. Why would it benefit FI or her to keep her around?
> She is like an FI Permanent family member.
fuck no.
she's spent years causing problems for various TCS people ... i guess that's kinda like a non-TCS family member :(
> If she has been around for a long time and is still a bully, she hasn't learned much from FI. Why would it benefit FI or her to keep her around?
She would be a non-minion FI member to keep Elliot in check.
She would be helping Elliot learn and improve because she is the only fearless person who has the guts to criticize him.
> she's spent years causing problems for various TCS people ... i guess that's kinda like a non-TCS family member :(
She has the right to retaliate.
> She would be helping Elliot learn and improve because she is the only fearless person who has the guts to criticize him.
this is false. and very insulting to a bunch of people.
> this is false. and very insulting to a bunch of people.
where is the free speech now?
the fuck is wrong with you? criticizing your stupid posts doesn't prevent you from posting more idiocy. criticism isn't censorship. jfc.
>She has the right to retaliate.
what is she retaliating against?
> the fuck is wrong with you? criticizing your stupid posts doesn't prevent you from posting more idiocy. criticism isn't censorship. jfc.
As an anonymous member here I need to defend banned members of FI.
Nothing personal.
> what is she retaliating against?
I am not allowed to share the exact details.
You know what I am talking about.
She was hurt by XXATCOUGHCCOUGHSMEMBERXX
Remove cough and X to know.
They keep talking about me on curi.us.
Now they even blame for the problems they created for themselves and keep creating for themselves.
You banned me from FI forever, now ban me from your minds forever.
Remember what Howard Roark said to Ellsworth Toohey.
READ THIS THOROUGHLY.
http://www.leonorgomes.com/2016/05/dont-think-of-me.html
Being hurt by one person in the past is not a justification for bullying others.
Bullies typically have irrational reasons of this kind. It's how they live with themselves and avoid changing.
Comment about this:
Reply to
> lots of people learn as kids and then stop learning much at some point around age 15-30.
http://www.leonorgomes.com/2016/05/getting-stuck-when-its-not-easy.html
> Being hurt by one person in the past is not a justification for bullying others.
DD and other had the moral duty to protect her.
> Bullies typically have irrational reasons of this kind. It's how they live with themselves and avoid changing.
Some consider Elliot as a bully but they tolerate him so that they can learn from him.
> Some consider Elliot as a bully but they tolerate him so that they can learn from him.
liars are unwelcome. they should admit what they think or leave. they are treating Elliot very badly and immorally.
> liars are unwelcome. they should admit what they think or leave. they are treating Elliot very badly and immorally.
What do you mean by "Admit what they think"?
Who treated Elliot badly and immorally?
you said they think Elliot is a bully. but they don't admit it. they lie.
>Some consider Elliot as a bully but they tolerate him so that they can learn from him.
Elliot's the kindest person I know
The people who think he's a bully should say so. They should say what they think he does that is bullying
> Elliot's the kindest person I know
Define Kind according to you.
>Some consider Elliot as a bully but they tolerate him so that they can learn from him.
Bullies often make vague false accusations like this. They then fail or refuse to explain clearly.
This is one way they justify their immoral behaviour to themselves and gullible others.
> Bullies often make vague false accusations like this. They then fail or refuse to explain clearly.
Interesting.
Should you write your accusation down on a paper and research them and gather quotes before you tell them?
Sometimes the excitement is too much to keep it down.
How do I lower my excitement of revealing my unstudied findings?
> How do I lower my excitement of revealing my unstudied findings?
Excited idiots are not allowed on FI
> Should you write your accusation down on a paper and research them and gather quotes before you tell them?
Keep your false accusations to yourself.
> Elliot's the kindest person I know
Yes
> Should you write your accusation down on a paper and research them and gather quotes before you tell them?
Don't accuse Elliot when you are unsure.
Try to be kind like Elliot.
Only Evil bullies accuse others and run away.
Don't be that.
You need to kill all your emotions if you want to be on FI.
What is the purpose of studying right wing philosophy if your idea is never going to be popular?
Why be an outcast following a philosophy that is so hated by the people?
Why follow a philosophy that will not be embraced by any nation politically atleast for the next 500 years?
you don't know when or why people will embrace reason. let's try to figure that out and how to help the process.
what's the purpose of studying something OTHER THAN the truth? nothing else is any good.
> Some consider Elliot as a bully but they tolerate him so that they can learn from him.
who?
Leonor wrote:
> it was my ideas that Ayn Rand was compatible with Popper
Leonor was in no way the source of this idea for the FI community. (I have no idea whether she had a similar idea on her own. But she didn't tell us. I didn't even know she'd read Popper.)
http://www.leonorgomes.com/2016/06/why-does-elliot-care-for-tessa.html
> The conversation where I had the idea happened around 2007 in a TCS forum called The Frog Pond that does not exist anymore and it was not archived by Wayback machine. Even if the forum still existed, I erased many, if not all, comments that I wrote in a self-destructive spree. If there are records, some of what I said could still appear in the quotes Elliot made, but it won't be under my real name.
>
> In that forum, I posted as "anonymous" at on point then I also used the alias "Dr. Ymous" as a joke for people calling me "anon". Elliot then shows up in the forum and didn't like when he discovered that the anonymous he was talking to was me. Elliot was interested in my ideas until he knew they were from me. My guess is that Elliot doesn't want to associate with me by giving me credit.
>
> At the time I remember that Elliot thought that Ayn Rand's ideas were not compatible with fallibilism. I didn't develop my idea, Elliot researched it further and wrote about it extensively. But I gave him a seed.
this is false and Leonor should stop trying to take credit for other people's ideas. she isn't being given credit because she played absolutely zero role in this.
comments now have visible numbers in the footer and you can now link to comments by writing something like #2618 and it will automatically make a link.
http://www.leonorgomes.com/2016/06/re-fi-more-lies.html
(commenting here because of the awful blog rules in the sidebar which are anti-FI-people)
> and why were just passively watching them like in a tv show?
why do you think Kate wasn't participating? maybe she participates in all kinds of awful stuff and leaves that part out of her posts.
> trying to impress elliot is more important than living a good life.
do you think Elliot is impressed? do you think Kate thinks he is? Elliot replied repeating his theme that these ppl can't read.
> maybe kate is like the hero in anthem, planning something awesome, but having to pretend she is the same as others in order not to endanger her life.
bullshit.