I'm a philosopher & classical liberal. I like Ayn Rand, Karl Popper, William Godwin & Ludwig von Mises.
Post about politics here.
#12320 I agree with Elliot. What's your point?
#12327 I am Elliot. My point was reposting content so it's in a better place.
If someone posts a tweet, link or quote without any comment, I'd generally assume they think it's good.
Sunny and Doug on political coults
You can skip the first 15~20 minutes
Of course I mean "cults"
Context is she's mad I said (to someone else):
> Anti-zionism is mostly motivated by anti-semitism. It's full of double standards and lies. See e.g. http://fallibleliving.com/essays/rational-politics/89-a-short-history-of-israel and the writing of @CarolineGlick
If gender doesn’t matter, why does it matter which gender you identify as? Trans-activists are sexists who judge people by their gender, contrary to the prior activism that downplayed gender. Also note the parallels to race issues.
We need a true decentralized social network.
It is technically possible?
#12390 It's technically possible if you assume people have free internet access. That doesn't make it realistic to get a lot of people using it, or make it convenient and user friendly, etc.
Also to get started people will need to do something like download the app from a website (which is not decentralized and relies on some webhost and domain registrar, and maybe cloudflare or some other service to deal with DDOSes. Or they could put it on github or some other site, but then that site could remove it).
And who makes the app and decides how it works? Some small, central group. Yes it could be open source and possible to fork, but that doesn't solve the problems well.
Gab made a centralized (their own database server) tool to enable commenting on any webpage. So even if the page doesn't have comments, or censors the comments, you can comment with Gab's tool and then other users of Gab's tool can see your comment and reply (if they go to the same webpage, or if they look at a list of recent comments or do a search for comments). I already thought that was not user friendly and would have a hard time catching on, but then Mozilla and Google won't let Gab distribute the browser extension, so now Gab wants to fork their own browser, which I think is an awful idea and far more user unfriendly.
I think, currently, political improvement may be a more viable way to improve the situation than a technological solution.
A moderator of the True Objectivism subreddit defended deplatforming! I replied:
> The government has supported and subsidized these companies, and has used the power of law to harm and prevent competition. It's not anything close to a free market.
> And the companies have claimed to be free speech platforms, so if they aren't that is/was fraud (false advertising). And the are brazenly and actively lying about what their moderation policies are. They wouldn't have gotten as popular as they are without that fraud.
#12366 Anti-Globalism is the greatest anti-Semitism.
Poles have published the Red Cross report on the Nazi concentration camps that claims 271,301 people were killed, not 6 million.
i think Borderless is worse than Farmlands. she’s trying hard to be professional and entertaining in ways i don’t like, instead of just giving info. her talking seems more scripted for drama. too much of a staged feel to some scenes. i also don’t like the fake neutrality/objectivity.
i had an impression that Borderless had more makeup on Lauren and that kinda thing. so i just skimmed Farmlands by clicking at random places. first 5 clicks and lauren isn't even on screen. even when she's on screen, she's often at a distance, wearing a hat, and doing some activity *other than* talking straight into the camera. Borderless made way more effort to fit in close shots of Lauren and her face. that's another way it's catering more to the masses.
i’m not the target audience. it’s not meant to be for niche hardcore fans/supporters. it's meant for people with more moderate politics than me, and who are much less informed about the issues. it repeatedly took things i already knew, or at least would have expected if asked, and presented them as very surprising. and Lauren kept telling her audience what to be surprised by, or what is important, like they can't think for themselves and need to be guided. it's a little like having laugh cues for an audience too dumb to know which parts to laugh at.
at first i was thinking: even toned down, it's still too much for YouTube to put up with. they delayed processing of it then took it down. but then i thought: maybe YouTube finds it *more threatening* when it's milder, b/c it can better reach the masses.
btw, yes, i know, she was always an actress who tried to be entertaining in non-intellectual ways. and the vids with Pettibone talking about relationships were pretty awful (Pettibone is just a pretty face afaict, while Southern is actually a smart person when she wants to be). some favs that have intelligent content mixed in with the clickbait:
about normie youtube and the state of the world:
debunking shitty "science":
Also the writing in her book was fine.
same problem happens with other stuff like game of thrones fans. the hardcore fans were there first, and were the only reason a TV show happened, but they got screwed over when the TV show was not made for them.
the video game industry in general moved far away from what the best ppl, who were early adopters, want. to cater to bigger audience. the early adopters made it possible but then don’t get stuff made for them.
Tucker Carlson, who says Bernie and AOC are right re max interest caps (very similar to price controls), is not the hero who will save us.
solid article btw. has info about the history of usury. fits with what i read (in more detail, with more quotes and sources) in Rothbard's history of economic thought (which the article quotes).
it's a good point that before there was much commerce, a major type of loan was for desperate poor ppl who need it for food and shelter. in that case, Christianity advocates charity (or if you ask for your money back, at least don't ask for extra). but the christian idea of charity doesn't really have much to do with loans to businessmen.
today, most loans aren't to pay for a meal. even some payday loans are used on luxuries. and what about payday loans to let someone pay rent or eat? payday lenders are kind enough to offer and option to people that *no one* (not the payday lender nor any church nor friends nor relatives nor anyone else*) wanted to give charity to. that's helpful.
ppl r on the other side of this issue are ignorant or willfully blind.
Long Milo Yiannopoulos article trashing people involved in making and editing Lauren Southern's documentaries. They committed crimes (like fraud and stealing lots of money) and betrayed the right. They previously fucked with Tommy Robinson at length. Milo suggests that Lauren probably knew what was going on and was somehow OK with it, and also that she has been sleeping with a bunch of right wing guys to get career and script help (and that she doesn't make much of her own material) while also lying about tradcon stuff publicly. Suggests Lauren recently retired to try to dodge the backlash. Also talks about Ezra Levant and others handling stuff badly.
Total mess. I would *not* recommend reading the whole article. It's a bit repetitive, kinda disorganized, and very long. But I'd recommend reading/skimming a bit to get the idea if you were interested in some of these ppl.
link for tweet in previous post https://twitter.com/AAPSonline/status/1138186118061408256
#12751 Boo hiss.
being pro-life motivated the pinterest whistleblower. it helped him do something good
I like the pinterest whistleblower. I like his attitudes and what he says:
I wonder if any of it is coached by Veritas (or by anyone else), or how much he prepped, or whether he got the interview questions in advance.
 I don't like his goal of banning abortion, but I understand it some. I dislike the prochoice activists more. People on both sides are awful at science and reason. If you have no clue about science or reason, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.
I know that isn't the reason he'd endorse. He'd claim to know that life really does begin at conception or some religious nonsense along those lines.
But meanwhile the pro-choice activists know nothing about science and are totally sure of themselves, just like they are with everything else. And they shouldn't be. They are irrational fools pretending to be smart. They're dangerous. They are confident about abortion and evolution (where they happen to be right) and also about Marxism, white privilege, affirmative action, minimum wage, socialized medicine, immigration, global warming, paternalistic government, and so on (where they're wrong).
*The Coming Green Terror* blog post by George Reisman:
> A 4 minute masterclass on how to argue for peace without apology.
By Jeff Deist, Mises Institute President, and RTed by the Mises Twitter account too.
> Lew Rockwell on RT International 22 06 19
I thought the video was *awful*. He said don't put any sanctions on Iran, sanctions are basically a war act and we're starving people in Iran and elsewhere, which is evil of us. Just have peace talks, but don't use violence *or* sanctions. He assumes everyone will be reasonably if you negotiate? Really nasty stuff IMO, and kinda damns the Mises Institute (some of their work on econ is still good ofc and they do a good job of making ebooks available).
Anyone like the vid?
More deplatforming, just as the video itself reports on.
And they fucked with my newsletter. I just sent out the YT link to that video today and now the link won't work for my readers and the archives are screwed up. Ugh.
the article is about the publisher vs. platform distinction and section 230 law. maybe you've heard about that stuff. if not, check out the article.
that approach is evil. I think this was pointed out in a Mises Institute article or podcast, i forget but wanted to give some kinda credit. i recall them saying something kinda like:
*it should be possible to have a moderated forum (not neutral) without being sued for every single thing anyone posts there*. to make that impossible is huge fucking govt oppression
so i suggest what i’ve suggested before (which i have not see anyone else suggesting): go after Facebook for **fraud**. they keep lying about their products and false advertising to customers
we don’t need new laws and more govt power, we need to enforce the most basic laws that already exist and would exist even under minarchy. start there and see how effective classical liberalism actually is!
#12875 Oh maybe I heard the publisher vs. platform criticism from Rucka. I definitely watched this video:
Maybe I saw a Mises article previously, but maybe not, can't remember.
I don't think I was paying much attention to the idea before hearing Rucka flame it. I didn't care about it much cuz I liked my fraud point more anyway. And the 230 stuff is just short term political details which I try to avoid; it's awful though.
more on #12875
Alan Forrester asked me:
> What fraud has Facebook committed?
they have a terms of service. their actual actions do not follow it.
they advertise what to expect on FB, what kinda platform it is. they say it’s basically open, and you won’t be banned, except for extreme cases like drug dealers using it to sell product
they advertised it as offering privacy and working privacy controls. recently their lawyers said basically that no one has any expectation of privacy on FB.
they said they had adequate and reasonable security safeguards so your data would not be stolen. that was a lie.
they said, in various forms, that they don’t sell your data to advertisers, then they did.
overall, they lied that they were a neutral town square. they aren’t. if they had admitted from the start that they were a leftist site which moderates conservatives, then they would have fewer users and more conservative alternatives would exist.
they are still lying today. they don't want anyone to know what their real policies are for censoring stuff and deplatforming people or groups. they are actively relying on tricking (defrauding) their users. they are doing the same kind of shit – and publicly lying about it – that Veritas just exposed Pinterest and Google for.
BTW I think FB has also committed fraud against their advertisers. I remember reading about an issue, a while ago, where they were counting video views or view duration in an unreasonable way so they could mislead advertisers about how much exposure they got for their money.
Here's an article which mentions an issue:
Basically says they were charging advertisers for a video view if a video *autoplayed* (probably muted) for 3 seconds before the user scrolled it off the screen.
They have lots of shady crap regarding how they count ad views and even today, years after they got in bad press over this, I failed to find any good info about how it works (from FB or a third party) after searching a bit. I didn't find like a basic guide to what you need to know to advertise on FB and know what you're actually buying.
Apple trying to do deplatforming:
(This is an unmoderated discussion forum. Discussion info.)