Hearted Youtube comments on Based Camp with Simone & Malcolm Collins (@SimoneandMalcolm) channel.

  1. 1300
  2. 1000
  3. 740
  4. 664
  5. 633
  6. 600
  7. 503
  8. 503
  9. 502
  10. 422
  11. 359
  12. 321
  13. 313
  14. 303
  15. 292
  16. 291
  17. 281
  18. 265
  19. This is going to sound sociopathic via text, so please understand this is a deliberately value-free analysis and is not an endorsement of vigilantism in a moral sense. In many ways, vigilantism helped build higher societies. No tribe emerged from the primordial aether with bureaucratized and abstracted concepts of legality and ethics which in any way resembled high civilizations. Vigilantism was one of the costs "priced in" by social codes. If you screwed a man hard enough, he might just come for you. You can see this reflected in folk wisdom such as "nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose". That cute little adage isn't saying "oh, those with nothing on the line try harder", it's warning that once someone has no chips left on the game board, they might flip the table. History is replete with this echo: "surrender with honor", "allowing an exit", "chose to retire", etc. In our very safe, very insulated, very civilized world, these might seem quant or be accepted as received moral precepts, but they are based on a firm inherited calculus: every man, no matter how reasonable, has a point where he'll turn to tooth and claw, if only to make you bleed with him. We might think of our age as one built on these costs, but so managed that we no longer pay them. Unjust words no longer result in duels, but we say slander is bad. The shopkeeper no longer has to beat thieves, because the justice system punishes theft. And the tribe doesn't have to mob-justice the degenerate who wrecked the common green, because social shame makes the idea of transgressing abhorrent, well before the thought of violence arises. Or rather... our society was functional. For a blip of time in the late modernity, the West managed to reach an amazing peak. We'd priced in vigilantism to our social systems so efficiently that the vigilantism was no longer ever actioned. Unfortunately, over time this lead to virtuous violence being classed as mere violence, and morally equal to unjust violence. Like many modern ills, this wasn't felt at first, as the moral inertia of the old system propelled behavior that was no longer incentivized by the current market. Slowly, though, new actors came about in an age with new incentives, and they better adapted to their environment. If a powerful CEO can get ahead with profit maximization through legal murder, and the only penalty is a fractional hit on a rocketing upward graph? Why not? The only external cost is some disapproval from people he doesn't care about. He's optimized for his environment, because he's recognized that the formerly "priced in" vigilantism behind that disapproval has been replaced with a memory of said vigilantism, like a vestigial clause in a defunct contract. We've been at this point for some time. The grinding inhumanity of our era would have brought our ancestors to violence long before. We've constrained this through the anti-agentic "all violence is (equally) bad" propaganda. So yes, this murder, and moreover, the general public acceptance, is indicative of social degeneration. But it's not a descent from normality. It's a return. A ball was thrown into the air, and for a time (the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries) it seemed to hang suspended at its apex, but it has now begun to fall. The proper response is to recognize where we are, what we are, the historical anomaly we are exiting, and decide how to proceed.
    261
  20. 260
  21. 256
  22. 255
  23. 251
  24. 245
  25. 230
  26. 228
  27. 228
  28. 226
  29. 223
  30. 220
  31. 205
  32. 200
  33. 199
  34. 198
  35. 196
  36. 194
  37. 193
  38. 187
  39. 183
  40. 179
  41. 178
  42. 165
  43. 164
  44. 164
  45. 161
  46. 161
  47. 159
  48. 157
  49. 155
  50. 153
  51. 152
  52. 152
  53. 151
  54. 151
  55. 151
  56. 148
  57. 148
  58. 148
  59. 148
  60. 146
  61. 146
  62. 145
  63. 145
  64. 144
  65. 141
  66. 141
  67. 140
  68. 140
  69. 139
  70. 139
  71. 137
  72. 130
  73. 130
  74. 130
  75. 128
  76. 128
  77. 128
  78. 127
  79. 127
  80. 126
  81. 125
  82. 124
  83. 124
  84. 124
  85. 122
  86. 121
  87. 118
  88. 116
  89. 116
  90. 114
  91. 114
  92. 113
  93. 113
  94. 111
  95. 111
  96. 111
  97. 111
  98. 110
  99. 110
  100. 110
  101. 110
  102. 109
  103. 109
  104. 108
  105. 107
  106. 107
  107. 106
  108. 106
  109. 105
  110. 103
  111. 103
  112. 103
  113. 103
  114. 103
  115. 103
  116. 102
  117. 101
  118. 100
  119. 100
  120. 100
  121. 100
  122. 100
  123. 99
  124. 99
  125. 99
  126. 98
  127. 98
  128. 97
  129. 97
  130. 97
  131. 97
  132. 97
  133. 96
  134. 96
  135. 96
  136. 96
  137. 95
  138. 95
  139. 95
  140. 95
  141. 95
  142. 95
  143. 94
  144. 94
  145. 94
  146. 93
  147. 93
  148. 93
  149. 92
  150. 92
  151. 91
  152. 91
  153. 91
  154. 91
  155. 91
  156. 90
  157. 90
  158. 90
  159. 90
  160. 89
  161. 89
  162. 88
  163. 88
  164. 88
  165. 87
  166. 87
  167. 87
  168. 86
  169. 86
  170. 86
  171. 86
  172. 86
  173. 86
  174. 85
  175. 85
  176. 85
  177. 84
  178. 84
  179. 84
  180. 84
  181. 84
  182. 84
  183. 84
  184. 84
  185. 84
  186. 84
  187. 84
  188. 83
  189. 83
  190. 83
  191. 83
  192. 83
  193. 83
  194. 82
  195. 81
  196. 81
  197. 81
  198. 80
  199. 80
  200. 80
  201. 80
  202. 79
  203. 79
  204. 79
  205. 79
  206. 79
  207. 79
  208. 79
  209. 78
  210. 78
  211. 77
  212. 77
  213. 77
  214. 77
  215. 77
  216. 76
  217. 76
  218. 75
  219. 75
  220. 75
  221. 74
  222. 72
  223. 72
  224. 72
  225. 72
  226. 71
  227. 71
  228. 71
  229. 71
  230. 71
  231. 71
  232. 71
  233. 71
  234. 70
  235. 70
  236. 70
  237. 70
  238. 69
  239. 69
  240. 69
  241. 69
  242. 69
  243. 68
  244. 68
  245. 68
  246. 68
  247. 68
  248. 68
  249. 68
  250. 68
  251. 68
  252. 68
  253. 68
  254. 68
  255. 68
  256. 67
  257. 67
  258. 67
  259. 67
  260. 66
  261. 66
  262. 66
  263. 66
  264. 66
  265. 66
  266. 65
  267. 65
  268. 65
  269. 65
  270. 65
  271. 65
  272. 65
  273. 64
  274. 64
  275. 64
  276. 64
  277. 64
  278. 63
  279. 63
  280. 63
  281. 63
  282. 63
  283. 63
  284. 62
  285. 62
  286. 62
  287. 62
  288. 62
  289. 62
  290. 61
  291. 61
  292. 61
  293. 61
  294. 60
  295. 60
  296. 60
  297. 60
  298. 60
  299. 60
  300. 60
  301. 59
  302. 59
  303. 59
  304. 59
  305. 58
  306. 58
  307. 58
  308. 58
  309. 58
  310. 58
  311. 58
  312. 58
  313. 58
  314. 58
  315. 58
  316. 57
  317. 57
  318. 57
  319. 57
  320. 57
  321. 57
  322. 57
  323. 57
  324. 57
  325. 56
  326. 56
  327. 56
  328. 56
  329. 56
  330. 56
  331. 56
  332. 56
  333. 56
  334. 55
  335. 55
  336. 55
  337. 55
  338. 55
  339. 54
  340. 54
  341. 54
  342. 54
  343. 54
  344. 54
  345. 54
  346. 54
  347. 53
  348. 53
  349. 53
  350. 53
  351. 53
  352. 53
  353. 53
  354. 53
  355. 53
  356. 52
  357. 52
  358. 52
  359. 52
  360. 52
  361. 52
  362. 52
  363. 51
  364. 51
  365. 51
  366. 51
  367. 51
  368. 51
  369. 51
  370. 51
  371. 50
  372. 50
  373. 50
  374. 50
  375. 50
  376. 50
  377. 50
  378. 50
  379. 50
  380. 49
  381. 49
  382. 49
  383. 49
  384. 49
  385. 49
  386. 49
  387. 49
  388. 49
  389. 48
  390. 48
  391. The reason why the highly religious would reject this is pretty obvious. To me, what is more interesting is why "progressives" would reject this. I don't really think they are hypocritical, just evil. My two cents: The reason why progressives don't want to accept this view, such as that guy you showed in the video is because of the centrality of rebellion and anti-authoritarianism in their meta-narratives. It isn't JUST the hedonism, with these people rejecting hedonistic pleasure as central focus of their life. To them, having any "non-straight" sexuality means you are part of an oppressed group, who society is maliciously trying to coerce into a rigid and oppressive framework. The role of this person then, is to act in a way conducive towards collective liberation, by "living out their truth". They have to actively reject the system, and live in "counter-cultural" way (hence, blue hair, dysfunctional sexual lives, etc.). In this case, any "non-straight" man who engages in a normal marriage is a class traitor, going against the interests of the collective and reinforcing the oppressive social norms meant to control them. Your personal freedom is not relevant at all, it is you class freedom that matters. To "live authentically" is to live in rebellion against the system, and all actions that go along with the system are definitionally "inauthentic". This also is why practically everything promoted by the urban monoculture is so dysfunctional, an oppressive system will want good worker drones, and doing the total opposite of everything is wants will simply lead to total personal dysfunction. And yes, this is a major aspect of why progressivism is totalitarian.
    48
  392. 48
  393. 48
  394. 48
  395. 48
  396. 48
  397. 48
  398. 48
  399. 48
  400. 48
  401. 48
  402. 48
  403. 48
  404. 48
  405. 48
  406. 48
  407. 48
  408. 47
  409. 47
  410. 47
  411. 47
  412. 47
  413. 47
  414. 47
  415. 46
  416. 46
  417. 46
  418. 46
  419. 46
  420. 46
  421. 46
  422. 46
  423. 46
  424. 46
  425. 46
  426. 46
  427. 46
  428. 46
  429. 46
  430. 45
  431. 45
  432. 45
  433. 45
  434. 45
  435. 45
  436. 45
  437. 45
  438. 45
  439. 45
  440. 44
  441. 44
  442. 44
  443. 44
  444. 44
  445. 44
  446. 44
  447. 44
  448. 44
  449. 43
  450. 43
  451. 43
  452. 43
  453. 43
  454. 43
  455. 43
  456. 43
  457. 43
  458. 43
  459. 43
  460. 42
  461. 42
  462. 42
  463. 42
  464. 42
  465. 42
  466. 42
  467. 42
  468. 42
  469. 42
  470. 42
  471. 41
  472. 41
  473. 41
  474. 41
  475. 41
  476. 41
  477. 41
  478. 41
  479. 41
  480. 41
  481. 41
  482. 41
  483. 41
  484. 41
  485. 41
  486. lived in Busan, South Korea for 5 years. engaged to a Korean man. needless to say... I'm early 30s now and he will be joining me in Upper Midwest USA where we will start our family. Malcom is 100% right about the crazy social issues in Korea. I literally could NOT stand it. I could NOT stand the disrespect I felt towards "blue collared workers" there... coming from Michigan it made noooo sense and was almost the opposite of how I was raised haha. like um... electricians and snow plow drivers and cleaners are a million times better and more useful than some office waste of space pushing unnecessary paperwork and drinking too much Maxim insta-coffee, oh and online shopping but "pretending to be working so hard" doing overtime??? lol. I started having culture shock breakdowns where I'd purposely make myself look ugly and mess up my hair right next to people fixing their hair with their brand name shit on hahahahaha. if you are a strange, nonconformist American... you will slowly go insane there if you spend too long and try to settle... trust me. you can adapt some but you will never feel right. lol. things do seem very strange and cult-like there... probably why cults are so popular in general there too hahaha. chaebols also used to do creepy "mass games" like you see in North Korea too... like where everyone in the company has to do the same movements/dances and hold up cards and stuff. just go search for it. and the test obsession, and rote memorization is education... lack of creativity in the class. really didn't like it compared to my American style education. if this crazy competitive, power structure, shit ever went away in Korea... it would be SO AMAZING. the food, the culture other than the hierarchal obsession, the cool cafes and third space ideas in cities, the conveniences they figured out perfectly in their infrastructure... literally love it. also... pro tip: don't follow friendly young Koreans that speak English to you and promise you a "cultural experience" if they approach you in Seoul. they are from a cult, and you should tell them to screw off lmao.
    41
  487. 40
  488. 40
  489. 40
  490. 40
  491. 40
  492. 40
  493. 40
  494. 40
  495. 40
  496. 40
  497. 40
  498. 40
  499. 40
  500. 40
  501. 40
  502. 39
  503. 39
  504. 39
  505. 39
  506. 39
  507. 39
  508. 39
  509. 39
  510. 39
  511. 39
  512. 39
  513. 39
  514. 39
  515. 39
  516. 39
  517. 39
  518. 38
  519. 38
  520. 38
  521. 38
  522. 38
  523. 38
  524. 38
  525. 38
  526. 38
  527. 38
  528. 37
  529. 37
  530. 37
  531. 37
  532. 37
  533. 37
  534. 37
  535. 37
  536. 37
  537. 37
  538. 37
  539. 37
  540. 37
  541. 37
  542. 37
  543. 37
  544. 37
  545. 37
  546. 36
  547. 36
  548. 36
  549. 36
  550. 36
  551. 36
  552. 36
  553. 36
  554. 36
  555. 36
  556. 36
  557. 36
  558. 36
  559. 36
  560. 36
  561. 36
  562. 36
  563. 36
  564. 36
  565. 36
  566. 36
  567. 36
  568. 36
  569. 35
  570. 35
  571. 35
  572. 35
  573. 35
  574. 35
  575. 35
  576. 35
  577. 35
  578. 35
  579. 35
  580. 35
  581. 35
  582. 35
  583. 35
  584. 35
  585. 34
  586. 34
  587. 34
  588. 34
  589. 34
  590. 34
  591. 34
  592. 34
  593. 34
  594. 34
  595. 34
  596. 34
  597. 34
  598. 33
  599. 33
  600. 33
  601. 33
  602. 33
  603. 33
  604. 33
  605. 33
  606. 33
  607. 33
  608. 33
  609. 33
  610. 33
  611. 33
  612. 33
  613. 33
  614. 32
  615. 32
  616. 32
  617. 32
  618. 32
  619. 32
  620. 32
  621. 32
  622. 32
  623. 32
  624. 32
  625. 32
  626. 32
  627. 32
  628. 32
  629. 32
  630. 32
  631. 32
  632. 32
  633. 31
  634. 31
  635. 31
  636. 31
  637. 31
  638. 31
  639. 31
  640. 31
  641. 31
  642. 31
  643. 31
  644. 31
  645. 31
  646. 31
  647. 31
  648. 31
  649. 31
  650. 31
  651. 31
  652. 31
  653. 31
  654. 31
  655. It is definitely and unambiguously the case that both Malcolm's religious language and Simone's non-religious language should be made available. The Malcolm's religious language will tend to appeal more to people with religious backgrounds and Simone's non-religious language will tend appeal more to people with atheistic backgrounds. The parallel reading of the two texts will facilitate the understanding of the language more foreign to the reader, the mutual understanding between religious leaning and atheist leaning groups, and the cooperation between those groups. Malcolm tends to be better at saying interesting things, while Simone tends to be better at rephrasing those things in ways that are less susceptible to misinterpretation. For example, on one occasion Malcolm said that he has a strong aversion to women with a high body count, then Simone clarified that he meant a sexual aversion, not a general aversion, and illustrated this with the example of Malcolm living in a brothel district in Korea. While this does suggest that Malcolm's statements would benefit from refinement by Simone, such refinement seems at least somewhat distinct from the "nuking out" of Malcolm's religious language, and I strongly reaffirm the initial sentence of this post. Malcolm's potentially misinterpretation religious language also invites the possibility of potentially fruitful elaboration on important religious topics in ways Simone's language would not. For instance Malcolm's use of the phrase "sons of man" invites elaboration on the relation between that and Jesus's referring to him self as "the son of man" as in John 9:35-37, it's relationship to Jesus also referring to himself as the son of god, and the further relationship between being the son of god and being the son of man, both in Jesus's case and in general. This further invites elaboration on the term "son of the devil" as in Acts 13:10. Please keep both languages, as each has a distinct value all it's own, and the parallel consumption of both languages has a distinct value all it's own. Please also address the hedonistic consumption of and engagement with interesting ideas such as those you present in lieu of doing obviously pragmatically more beneficial but less interesting and enjoyable labor.
    31
  656. 31
  657. 31
  658. 31
  659. 31
  660. 31
  661. 30
  662. 30
  663. 30
  664. 30
  665. 30
  666. 30
  667. 30
  668. Ok so I'm going to answer a few questions that came up having spent 7 years in Israel, while now in the U.S. Over the last twenty or so years, it has become more and more difficult to get a gun in Israel. Partly this is the government being more afraid of the occasional, "Wild Weed," (Jewish fanatic.) But mostly, it's a combination of complacency and an ever-expanding bureaucracy making it not worth the effort, paperwork, and long wait times. The day this massacre happened, the government reversed policy and issued 10,000 rifles, and this will doubtless result in a permanent change. Gun ownership is open carry only. Concealed carry is not allowed. They want any potential terrorist to see all the guns around and decide that his likelihood of success is so low as to not be worth it. You can get a gun if you are a former soldier, involved in security in any way, or if you have a job or residence in a dangerous area. It is reviewed by a committee before approval. The communities by Gaza were built in the 50's as border outposts back when the secular socialist movement that built the country was in it's prime. But as the secular Israeli society that created them aged and became more and more progressive in the modern sense, they lost a lot of their edge. Had this happened to a settlement in the West Bank, the terrorists would not have had nearly the success they did here. There was just a lot of complacency that the army, the intelligence services, and the local security teams had the problem covered. The Arabs have never carried out an attack this well-coordinated and clever before. All of the complacency came back to bite them in the most horrible way. As for Jews with guns, well, I think a lot of us are just better off than most and are able to live in places where personal security isn't an issue, and so have the luxury of being consumed by their progressive pieties. I'm a Modern Orthodox Jew living in the U.S. suburbs, my wife is more liberal than I. Even she just agreed we need to buy a gun in light of the security situation. I have been learning how to shoot and hopefully will have one soon. Me and A LOT my Jewish neighbors.
    30
  669. 30
  670. 30
  671. 30
  672. 30
  673. 29
  674. 29
  675. 29
  676. 29
  677. 29
  678. 29
  679. 29
  680. 29
  681. 29
  682. 29
  683. 29
  684. 29
  685. 29
  686. 29
  687. 29
  688. 29
  689. 29
  690. 29
  691. 29
  692. 28
  693. 28
  694. 28
  695. 28
  696. 28
  697. 28
  698. 28
  699. 28
  700. 28
  701. 28
  702. 28
  703. 28
  704. 28
  705. 28
  706. 28
  707. 28
  708. 28
  709. 28
  710. 28
  711. 28
  712. 28
  713. 28
  714. 28
  715. 27
  716. 27
  717. 27
  718. 27
  719. 27
  720. 27
  721. 27
  722. 27
  723. 27
  724. 27
  725. 27
  726. 27
  727. 27
  728. 27
  729. 27
  730. 27
  731. 27
  732. 27
  733. 27
  734. 27
  735. 27
  736. 27
  737. 26
  738. 26
  739. 26
  740. 26
  741. 26
  742. 26
  743. 26
  744. 26
  745. 26
  746. 26
  747. 26
  748. 26
  749. 26
  750. 26
  751. 26
  752. 26
  753. 26
  754. 26
  755. 26
  756. 26
  757. 26
  758. 26
  759. 25
  760. 25
  761. 25
  762. 25
  763. 25
  764. 25
  765. 25
  766. 25
  767. 25
  768. 25
  769. 25
  770. 25
  771. 25
  772. 25
  773. 25
  774. 25
  775. 25
  776. 25
  777. 25
  778. 25
  779. 25
  780. 25
  781. 25
  782. 25
  783. 25
  784. 25
  785. 25
  786. 25
  787. 25
  788. 25
  789. 25
  790. 25
  791. 25
  792. 24
  793. 24
  794. 24
  795. 24
  796. 24
  797. 24
  798. 24
  799. 24
  800. 24
  801. 24
  802. 24
  803. 24
  804. 24
  805. 24
  806. 24
  807. 24
  808. 24
  809. 24
  810. 24
  811. 24
  812. 24
  813. 24
  814. 24
  815. 24
  816. 24
  817. 24
  818. 24
  819. 24
  820. 24
  821. 24
  822. 24
  823. 24
  824. 24
  825. 23
  826. 23
  827. 23
  828. 23
  829. 23
  830. 23
  831. 23
  832. 23
  833. 23
  834. 23
  835. 23
  836. 23
  837. 23
  838. 23
  839. 23
  840. 23
  841. 23
  842. 23
  843. 23
  844. 23
  845. 23
  846. 23
  847. 23
  848. 23
  849. 23
  850. 23
  851. 23
  852. 23
  853. 23
  854. 23
  855. 22
  856. 22
  857. 22
  858. 22
  859. 22
  860. 22
  861. 22
  862. 22
  863. 22
  864. 22
  865. 22
  866. 22
  867. 22
  868. 22
  869. 22
  870. 22
  871. 22
  872. 22
  873. 22
  874. 22
  875. 22
  876. 22
  877. 22
  878. 22
  879. 22
  880. 22
  881. 22
  882. 22
  883. 21
  884. 21
  885. 21
  886. 21
  887. 21
  888. 21
  889. 21
  890. 21
  891. 21
  892. 21
  893. 21
  894. 21
  895. 21
  896. 21
  897. 21
  898. 21
  899. 21
  900. 21
  901. 21
  902. 21
  903. 21
  904. 21
  905. 21
  906. 21
  907. 21
  908. 21
  909. 20
  910. 20
  911. 20
  912. 20
  913. 20
  914. 20
  915. 20
  916. 20
  917. 20
  918. 20
  919. 20
  920. 20
  921. 20
  922. 20
  923. 20
  924. 20
  925. 20
  926. 20
  927. 20
  928. 20
  929. 20
  930. 20
  931. 20
  932. 20
  933. 20
  934. 20
  935. 20
  936. 20
  937. 20
  938. 20
  939. 20
  940. 20
  941. 20
  942. 20
  943. 20
  944. 20
  945. 20
  946. 20
  947. 20
  948. 20
  949. 20
  950. 20
  951. 20
  952. 20
  953. 20
  954. 19
  955. 19
  956. 19
  957. 19
  958. 19
  959. 19
  960. 19
  961. 19
  962. 19
  963. 19
  964. 19
  965. 19
  966. 19
  967. 19
  968. 19
  969. 19
  970. 19
  971. 19
  972. 19
  973. 19
  974. 19
  975. 19
  976. 19
  977. 19
  978. 19
  979. 19
  980. 19
  981. 19
  982. 19
  983. 19
  984. 19
  985. 19
  986. 19
  987. 18
  988. 18
  989. 18
  990. 18
  991. 18
  992. 18
  993. 18
  994. 18
  995. 18
  996. 18
  997. 18
  998. 18
  999. 18
  1000. 18
  1001. 18
  1002. 18
  1003. 18
  1004. 18
  1005. 18
  1006. 18
  1007. 18
  1008. 18
  1009. 18
  1010. 18
  1011. 18
  1012. 18
  1013. 18
  1014. 18
  1015. 18
  1016. 18
  1017. 18
  1018. 18
  1019. 18
  1020. 18
  1021. 18
  1022. 18
  1023. 18
  1024. 18
  1025. 18
  1026. 18
  1027. 18
  1028. 18
  1029. I think you have a decent seed of an idea, but incorrectly analyzed. Disgust based moral systems work, but have externalities. A culture based on avoiding/removing disgust would be functional, positive, and broadly good for human flourishing. Its issue would not be that it did not work, but that the externalities it created were cruel. For instance, avoiding disease is a prosocial norm, but unjust shunning of a cripple is an evil act. Where I think you misread the prior moral systems is that even in harder disgust based moralities, higher order thinkers recognized that excess or blind disgust could lead to cruelty, and in the most functional, you see arguments that essentially boil down to "yes, live clean and virtuous, but also remember mercy and compassion". Where cringe morality took over was where the countervailing force of "remember X when experiencing disgust" became dominant over disgust. Instead of mercy and compassion to the infirm, it became condemnation of the able. In many ways, the problem is that the higher-order thoughts became the low-brow thoughts. A helpful truism is that "the prize for winning the culture is to see the stupid version of your smart ideas". Disgust as a low resolution system functioned for grug-brain and monk-brain alike, and when the elite also argued for contrary compassion, you saw the greatest human flourishing. When that compassion became the Grug-brain low resolution "base morality", it turned toxic (it's unsound like an inverted pyramid). What your seeing with "based" is a cognitive elite counter-signal in favor that "sometimes disgust is necessary" just as "sometimes compassion is necessary" countered low resolution disgust morality. Tl;Dr - low res disgust is functional, and when tempered by high resolution mercy, is great. Low res mercy is dysfunctional, and we've yet to see if/how it can be countered by high resolution disgust. Tl;Dr 2 - as the prize for winning the culture war is low resolution versions of high resolution thinking, one of the preeminent challenges of our era is fighting for cultures that function for Grug as well as for Aquinas, since there are far more Grugs.
    18
  1030. 18
  1031. 18
  1032. 17
  1033. 17
  1034. 17
  1035. 17
  1036. 17
  1037. 17
  1038. Firstly, I do appreciate you both for taking on this issue of skilled immigration at face value and going over its pros and cons. This is an admirable quality of the 2 of you which is sorely missed in many commentators and is why I subscribe to you. However, I think there are multiple variables that you overlooked. Firstly, there is a concern over inter-ethnic tensions within these organizations and in the broader Right-wing coalition. Thomas Sowell talks about how affirmative action, among its myriad issues, is more likely to produce animosity between ethnic groups rather than alleviate them because of the perception that said ethnic beneficiary is receiving special treatment. This issue is likely to produce a similar form of tension that could be a problem for a pluralistic future. Cultural diversity is an admirable pursuit but it must be balanced against inter-cultural animosity. Second, this is a serious Motte and Bailey situation because the discussion in this podcast was surrounding high-skilled labor – as in the economic and national benefit to bringing in people to fill productivity gaps in the American labor market. However, look at the positions being offered for H1B Visas currently. You’ll see listings like Data Analysts (entry level), Accountants (entry level), even line cooks (no degree necessary). I’m libertarian myself, but this is EXACTLY what happened to Canada: competition in labor markets deflating wages in tech industries while competition for housing increasing cost of living = decreased living standards. Predictable undesirable outcomes. Finally, this discussion is causing the new right, particularly Musk himself, to behave EXTREMELY questionably. You guys brought up Laura Loomer as one of the detractors in this discussion. Say what you want about her business acumen compared to the likes of Vivek or Elon, but Lauren had her X account SUSPENDED and her checkmark removed – along with MANY others in the wake of this discussion. Regardless of where anyone stands on this issue, this is concerning. Whoever is making these decisions at X headquarters is risking the Elon’s integrity as a warrior for free speech and thus weakening his standing with the new rightwing coalition. It’s as if in November everyone was saying ā€œThe Right is not longer the party of big business, we’re for the working class!ā€ and now, after speaking with a lot of my fellow right-wing friends, at the end of December it’s ā€œThe Right is in favor of Big Business outsourcing its talent at discounted prices.ā€ I want to reiterate – I appreciate you guys both giving both sides of the argument consideration and I don’t have any issue with you both landing on the pro side of the H1B discussion. It’s good for there to be debate over meaningful questions. But just as a person observing this discussion, and especially with the backlash that it’s producing online, this feels… ominously… like a canary in the coal mine for things to come. Happy New Year!
    17
  1039. I dated a feminist gal once with the hope of "trying to fix her," (spoiler alert: I failed, no fixing occurred, relationship ended poorly). One of the things that, at least so long as she was in a relationship with me that DID notably change her mindset (at least with me in conversation) was that she learned to empathize with me and the obvious disparity in the higher amount of effort I was bringing to the relationship versus the much lower amount she contributes (realizations like this are what extended this relationship beyond when it should've ended). A HUGE issue on this note is that culture has created a mental prison for women like this. It takes an IMMENSE amount of either outside effort or a terrible internal emotional breakdown for these women to realize how narcisstic and self-centered they've been trained to be in order to stop them from being "Nuns to the State" for the rest of their lives. They are literally inculcated into a fantasy bubble that teaches them to directly ignore and denigrate the needs of half the human population, while that half makes endless excuses for this behavior and generally gives them constant benefit of the doubt. This right here to me, is the actual heart of the Anti-Natalist miasma in modern society, as far as I'm concerned. The state literally trains scores of the female population to be unmarriageable and eternally single and unhappy in order to keep them as a stable, submissive, voting bloc. Also Malcolm. Bro: take a day off. You sound sick.
    17
  1040. 17
  1041. 17
  1042. 17
  1043. 17
  1044. 17
  1045. 17
  1046. 17
  1047. 17
  1048. 17
  1049. 17
  1050. 17
  1051. 17
  1052. 17
  1053. 17
  1054. 17
  1055. 17
  1056. 17
  1057. 17
  1058. I have a relative who does extremely well for himself whos eldest daughter was largely raised by babysitters while he was building his first companies and still working well over full time as a CFO. He frequently says its one of the biggest regrets of his life. His daughter had behavioral issues when she was younger (14-19ish) but those decisions frame out the rest of your existence for a lot of people. His other kids were raised at home (To a degree with their eldests help) and they are all little geniuses and generally really well socialized for the ingroup they operate in and select to be around, bunches of friends from public schools and otherwise. very little grief. All that being said i grew up pretty poor (I wasnt Eating dirt just extremely financially instable at the bottom end) and in that circumstance, the neighboring parent helping parent you, was how my mom didnt have to pay for child care. I had half a dozen parents who all lived on the same block, i played with their kids, and in retrospect they shared cultural values around child rearing that were pretty compatable so it worked out. We had a common strategy for dealing with poverty that was a more communal relationship. This broke down by blocks, where over a certain street, you werent allowed to discipline someone elses kid, but if you lived on our street with all the other parents of my lifelong friends, you could expect to be disciplined by anyone. It really did give me the constant instruction required to not grow up to be a poor member of what would end up being my broader community
    17
  1059. 17
  1060. 17
  1061. 17
  1062. 17
  1063. 17
  1064. 17
  1065. 17
  1066. 17
  1067. 17
  1068. 17
  1069. 17
  1070. 17
  1071. 17
  1072. 17
  1073. 17
  1074. 17
  1075. 17
  1076. 17
  1077. 17
  1078. 16
  1079. 16
  1080. 16
  1081. 16
  1082. 16
  1083. 16
  1084. 16
  1085. 16
  1086. 16
  1087. 16
  1088. 16
  1089. 16
  1090. 16
  1091. 16
  1092. 16
  1093. 16
  1094. 16
  1095. 16
  1096. 16
  1097. 16
  1098. 16
  1099. 16
  1100. 16
  1101. 16
  1102. 16
  1103. 16
  1104. 16
  1105. 16
  1106. 16
  1107. 16
  1108. 16
  1109. 16
  1110. 16
  1111. 16
  1112. 16
  1113. 16
  1114. 16
  1115. 16
  1116. 16
  1117. 16
  1118. 16
  1119. 16
  1120. 16
  1121. 16
  1122. 16
  1123. 16
  1124. 15
  1125. 15
  1126. 15
  1127. 15
  1128. 15
  1129. 15
  1130. 15
  1131. 15
  1132. 15
  1133. 15
  1134. 15
  1135. 15
  1136. 15
  1137. 15
  1138. 15
  1139. 15
  1140. 15
  1141. 15
  1142. 15
  1143. 15
  1144. 15
  1145. 15
  1146. 15
  1147. 15
  1148. 15
  1149. 15
  1150. 15
  1151. 15
  1152. 15
  1153. 15
  1154. 15
  1155. 15
  1156. 15
  1157. 15
  1158. 15
  1159. 15
  1160. 15
  1161. 15
  1162. 15
  1163. 15
  1164. 15
  1165. 15
  1166. 15
  1167. 15
  1168. 15
  1169. 15
  1170. Donald Trump is absolutely Jack Sparrow. It's the perfect comparison, and I'm shocked I haven't heard of this comparison before. In universe, he's both loved by some and disrespected by others for very similar reasons, he's the living embodiment of slipping on a banana peel and sticking the landing, and he oozes wit and intuitive brilliance, just like Trump. They're both also driven by legacy and wanting to "live forever" in one sense of another as well. As someone who was born into lower-middle class Midwestern society, I fit your description of being a bit confused that real estate, lawyers, and doctors aren't considered high class in the uppermost echalons of society, but then I remembered the Stanley Kubrick movie Eyes Wide Shut. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) is a doctor who often services the NYC blue blood elite, but he isn't one of them. He's forever on the periphery, but just close enough that he gets their table scraps, and he and his wife, Alice (Nicole Kidman), are trying to get in the club (though there's a theory that Alice already was, but I digress). The upper class characters made it pretty clear that Bill was considered more of a "servant friend" who they'd entertain because he was useful to them, but he wasn't really one of them no matter how much he wanted to be. Bill also goes around signalling his wealth in the way that he tips and flashes his credentials everywhere. The film is about things like martial fidelity, the fantasy and reality of the intersection between marriage, class, and sexuality, the real nature of the differences between men and women, and so on, but the narrative also shows Bill getting a peek inside the upper echalons of society as well. He sneaks into the inner circle uninvited, and doing so basically throws him into extremely precarious and ethically shady situations. It essentially tells Bill and the audience that you really don't want to be a part of what the blue bloods have. Point being, your comments about class went from sounding confusing to completely clicking in my mind because of the movie Eyes Wide Shut and how well Kubrick seemed to understand the elite classes and was able to dissect and critique (and sometimes mock) them. If you guys would ever be interested in doing a kind of analysis of that film, I think it would be incredibly interesting. I think it intersects quite a bit with some of your discussions around class and marriage lately.
    15
  1171. 15
  1172. 14
  1173. 14
  1174. 14
  1175. 14
  1176. 14
  1177. 14
  1178. 14
  1179. 14
  1180. 14
  1181. 14
  1182. 14
  1183. 14
  1184. 14
  1185. 14
  1186. 14
  1187. 14
  1188. 14
  1189. 14
  1190. 14
  1191. 14
  1192. 14
  1193. 14
  1194. 14
  1195. 14
  1196. 14
  1197. 14
  1198. 14
  1199. 14
  1200. 14
  1201. 14
  1202. 14
  1203. 14
  1204. 14
  1205. 14
  1206. 14
  1207. 14
  1208. 14
  1209. 14
  1210. 14
  1211. 14
  1212. 14
  1213. 14
  1214. 14
  1215. 14
  1216. 14
  1217. 14
  1218. 14
  1219. 14
  1220. 14
  1221. 14
  1222. 14
  1223. 14
  1224. 14
  1225. 14
  1226. 14
  1227. 14
  1228. 14
  1229. 14
  1230. 14
  1231. 14
  1232. 13
  1233. 13
  1234. 13
  1235. 13
  1236. 13
  1237. 13
  1238. [UK] 4:00 Norway funded Dustborn - as did the CIA. Neither is in the EU (although the mistake is understanable and your point is still valid). 35:20 Broadly, we in the UK and the EU have never had the level of democracy or political accountability which you used to have in the USA, until the ironically-named 'democrats' abandoned any pretence of democracy, honesty, or integrity. We come from previously monarchistic societies so tolerate a more centralised level of control (conversely, of course, a lot of our countries are smaller than most of your states). Nevertheless, the waste and corruption of national governments, and the unelected EU bureaucracy in particular, are a great cause of concern. [> UK politics specifically; it took until the 1960s for the labour party (our socialists/communists) to gain office. Since then we've more or less had to suffer them one term per generation just to prove to the kids how dangerous leftwing extremists can be, then we have another sane generation of centre/right rule. After Thatcher (and Major) we had Blair, who was the first evil labour leader - anti-democracy and anti-British as well as anti-capitalist. He completed the 'long march through the institutions' which meant that the succeeding generation of conservatives were prevented from doing anything useful by an extreme-left establishment - which refused to implement government policy - and biased media - which rewrites history to attack Britain and the British in every article and programme. With 12 years of complete failure, and 2 years of an active covid campaign of terror based on lies against the populace, almost no-one bothered to vote in our July election, which by default let labour in again, and they are already completing the authoritarian extreme-left destruction of the country and peoples. We have openly political police, persecuting political prisoners, and locking them in political prisons cleared of actual criminals released early to make way for them. The 'crimes' of these political prisoners range from mean words on social media to shouting at a police dog. Sentences are for 2 - 9 years].
    13
  1239. 13
  1240. 13
  1241. 13
  1242. 13
  1243. 13
  1244. 13
  1245. 13
  1246. 13
  1247. 13
  1248. 13
  1249. 13
  1250. 13
  1251. 13
  1252. 13
  1253. 13
  1254. 13
  1255. 13
  1256. 13
  1257. 13
  1258. 13
  1259. 13
  1260. 13
  1261. 13
  1262. 13
  1263. 13
  1264. 13
  1265. 13
  1266. 13
  1267. 13
  1268. 13
  1269. 13
  1270. 13
  1271. 13
  1272. 13
  1273. 13
  1274. 13
  1275. 13
  1276. 13
  1277. 13
  1278. 13
  1279. 13
  1280. 13
  1281. 13
  1282. 13
  1283. 13
  1284. 13
  1285. 13
  1286. 13
  1287. 13
  1288. 13
  1289. 13
  1290. 13
  1291. 13
  1292. 13
  1293. 12
  1294. 12
  1295. 12
  1296. 12
  1297. 12
  1298. 12
  1299. 12
  1300. 12
  1301. 12
  1302. 12
  1303. 12
  1304. 12
  1305. 12
  1306. 12
  1307. 12
  1308. 12
  1309. 12
  1310. 12
  1311. 12
  1312. 12
  1313. 12
  1314. 12
  1315. 12
  1316. 12
  1317. 12
  1318. 12
  1319. 12
  1320. 12
  1321. 12
  1322. 12
  1323. 12
  1324. 12
  1325. 12
  1326. 12
  1327. 12
  1328. 12
  1329. 12
  1330. 12
  1331. You guys have stated what your really want is not more people, but more people who can help humanity ascend to an Omega Point civilization. You want people like you who can assist in advancing AI, genetic modification, cybernetic implants, other robotics, and space travel. But this video exactly shows how you are refusing to say the quiet part out loud: If you really care about long-term trends, look at population increase inside countries over the last 100 years. That is true long-term. The quiet part you refuse to address is that in many countries that have no prospect of contributing to any of your goals, the population over the last hundred years has increased by a factor of 6 or more, so that countries that were below 20 million in 1924 are now well over 100 million. If a country is not advanced technologically, this 6x increase in population was completely unnecessary, because advances in agriculture over the past 100 years require far fewer than 6x. And if they are not contributing inside their country to advance technology and other production of actual goods, there is no place for them to go than to go to other countries, such as those of the West. See how this is the quiet part that makes all appeals to pro-natalism sound like the rantings of lunatics. Until you convince people that the Earth at the moment does not have 6x the people it should have, you cannot win the argument for pro-natalism. And this is compounded by the belief that AI and robotics that will make 3/4 of jobs obsolete is right around the corner.
    12
  1332. 12
  1333. 12
  1334. 12
  1335. 12
  1336. 12
  1337. 12
  1338. 12
  1339. 12
  1340. 12
  1341. Malsom & Simon, You both have missed a very important point. These activists and their pet Federal supervisors/managers not only diverted the most cryptographically secure National Security bandwidth for non-national security related tasks. They created a "hostile work environment" for straight and non-trans gay employees under Federal sexual harassment laws, rules, regulations and agency procedures. Federal managers have a positive legal obligation to act against sexual harassment and discrimination upon awareness. The Federal intelligence managers only failed to meet that legal obligation. They actively promoted a "hostile work environment" above the national security mission in agency policy documents with their signatures on them. All of the various intelligence agency supervisors and managers who had awareness of these sexting chat rooms, and promoted agency blogs where activists were expressing their gender identities, have "dead careers walking." Every member of national intelligence supervision "with awareness" - given the signed agency policy documents, that is all of them - can now be fired for cause both as ineffective managers of expensive, cryptographically secured, national intelligence bandwidth and as supervision who failed in their legal duties to act against sexual harassment under Federal sexual harassment laws, rules, regulations and agency procedures. While theses supervisors and managers can sue to get their jobs back under the Hatch act after U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) administrative appeals are exhausted. These soon to be ex-Federal intelligence supervision and their lawyers face a "Catch 22." That is, the managers and their lawyers will know the defending Trump Administration federal attorneys have wholly admissible blackmail evidence waiting for them - the details of what was said on those chat channels and how DEI was used to shut up whistle-blowers. And if they go to court, their names will be forever associated with the transcripts of the chat channels which will always be an new job application internet work history search away. I expect few, if any, would ever find work again as managers.
    12
  1342. 12
  1343. 12
  1344. 12
  1345. 12
  1346. 12
  1347. 12
  1348. 12
  1349. 12
  1350. 12
  1351. 12
  1352. 12
  1353. Also re nightclubs (speaking with professional experince for two decades). Here's my take one why people enjoy them (including me): - Not all nightclub experiences are the same. There is a big range from Top 40 / pick-up bar, to a dance-oriented night club, to more of a concert/venue style night club. So you might have just been in a terrible place. But I think you also don't have an affinity to the things that make them desirable to some people. - Nightclubs are one of the few places to hear and dance to certain types of music (electronic music / Hip hop). If you like music that falls into those umbrellas, you might be more disposed to enjoying them - Nightclubs are one of the few places where you can coordinate a large group of friends going to the same place without booking reservations. This is big in large cities where there is a huge coordination tax due to limited space and high demand. Your 1 bedroom New York or Toronto apartment can't hold a party well, and booking a restaurant reso for 25 people isn't realistic. Meeting up at a nightclub is one solution. - To Simone's point, group dance has a very unique effect on some people. It's incredibly grounding and restorative to some people. Most times, people go to dance with friends, not with strangers. So dancing with groups of friends is extremely bonding (for some people). Meeting people / stangers is only some people's motivation - Picking up - Dancing is sometimes a vertical expression of a horizontal desire. This is definitely a component of nightclub culture, but the type of nightclub really comes into it. A top 40 club is very pick-up oriented. A rave/electronic night club is usually more dance/drugs oriented. Different clubs serve different niches - Drug use - Nightclub are synomonous with drug use, because many drugs are enhanced by music. Also if you really love some types of music, drug use allows you to listen/dance longer than normal - People with ADHD are usually over represented in long-term nightclub enjoyment. The music/lights/people/chaos is highly stimulating. - Extroversion is over represented in long-term nightclub enjoyment. - There is definitely a social narrative of nightclubs being part of a "big night out" or of something that you're supposed to enjoy when young. A lot of people hate night-clubs for the reasons you mentioned, but love music festivals or DYI music events because they remove some of the rough edges.
    12
  1354. 12
  1355. 12
  1356. 12
  1357. 12
  1358. 12
  1359. 12
  1360. 12
  1361. 11
  1362. 11
  1363. 11
  1364. 11
  1365. 11
  1366. 11
  1367. 11
  1368. 11
  1369. 11
  1370. 11
  1371. 11
  1372. 11
  1373. 11
  1374. 11
  1375. 11
  1376. 11
  1377. 11
  1378. 11
  1379. 11
  1380. 11
  1381. 11
  1382. 11
  1383. 11
  1384. 11
  1385. 11
  1386. 11
  1387. 11
  1388. 11
  1389. 11
  1390. 11
  1391. 11
  1392. 11
  1393. 11
  1394. 11
  1395. 11
  1396. 11
  1397. 11
  1398. 11
  1399. 11
  1400. 11
  1401. 11
  1402. 11
  1403. 11
  1404. 11
  1405. 11
  1406. 11
  1407. 11
  1408. 11
  1409. 11
  1410. 11
  1411. 11
  1412. 11
  1413. 11
  1414. 11
  1415. 11
  1416. 11
  1417. 11
  1418. 11
  1419. 11
  1420. 11
  1421. 11
  1422. 11
  1423. 11
  1424. 11
  1425. First time commenting on anything, but really loving these conversations between you two! I first saw Simone on the MMM podcast with Louise Perry. Then Malcolm on Modern Wisdom with Chris Williamson today. I love what you all are trying to do to prevent population collapse and appreciate the attempt at trying to find some secular ways forward. Really validating, the idea that the generative ideas come from the fringe groups. I have some friends that unironically use 4chan regularly and we have conversations about 4chan originating memes all the time. It's such a massive contrast to people who if I even mention 4chan in a conversation, immediately become alarmed at the notion of any "normal" person using the platform. The fact that certain ideas can become "tainted" just by virtue of where it came from always struck me as odd. I have many liberal/left-leaning friends where I can explain a right-leaning idea to them, and as long as it's devoid of any particular notion of "right-wingness" they're perfectly able to engage with the idea on the merits. But if I were to say something like "(insert right-wing figure here) said xyz" the conversation immediately becomes impossible because "right-wing = bad." Very stifling to conversation as I feel like I'm spending more time with rhetoric, trying to make my communication palatable to an audience, than actually discussing ideas and their implications. Is this a necessary evil in discourse? Or is this just a "get better friends who can engage" kind of deal? Bit of a tangent, but still curious. It just seems so counter to what I expected "intellectual culture" to be like, why is any topic off the table? Again thanks for the public discussions, definitely gonna be reading your books in the coming weeks.
    11
  1426. 11
  1427. 11
  1428. 11
  1429. 11
  1430. 11
  1431. 11
  1432. 11
  1433. 11
  1434. 11
  1435. 11
  1436. 11
  1437. 10
  1438. 10
  1439. 10
  1440. 10
  1441. Found you on side scrollers and have been enjoying a bit of your content. I decided to write a comment because I think I have at least some sort of answer to one of your kind of questions, You were talking about how a lot of Republicans and people generally on the right are focusing on this as a debate when instead of the important issue of "who's actually running this country if that's the elected official". I think a big part of the reason for that which I don't recall you mentioning, is that for a lot of the people on the right, That's not a new question, That's not news, I know that myself who's mostly centrist my parents who are on the right and most of my friends who are also generally libertarian or centrist, have known that Biden wasn't running the country for 2 or 3 years now, since we saw him wandering off stage and wandering past secret service agents instead of going through the door that they were holding open for him, we've all known that he hasn't been in charge, we've all been pretty sure that Kamala isn't in charge, And that's just a question that we've been living with, some of us think that China is some of us think that the wef is some of us think that it's a deep state cabal. Some of us think that it's a cabal of leftist bureaucrats as you hypothesized and many of us just believe that it's some chaotic mess of all of the above. I'm not saying it's at all unimportant, I'm just saying that it wouldn't surprise me if to some degree. The reason why it's not being featured and centered as an object of the news is because for us the only new thing about it is, some of the Democrats have realized what we've already known to be true by observation.
    10
  1442. 10
  1443. 10
  1444. 10
  1445. 10
  1446. 10
  1447. 10
  1448. 10
  1449. 10
  1450. 10
  1451. 10
  1452. 10
  1453. 10
  1454. 10
  1455. 10
  1456. 10
  1457. 10
  1458. 10
  1459. 10
  1460. 10
  1461. 10
  1462. 10
  1463. 10
  1464. 10
  1465. 10
  1466. 10
  1467. 10
  1468. 10
  1469. 10
  1470. 10
  1471. 10
  1472. 10
  1473. 10
  1474. 10
  1475. 10
  1476. 10
  1477. 10
  1478. 10
  1479. 10
  1480. 10
  1481. 10
  1482. 10
  1483. 10
  1484. 10
  1485. 10
  1486. 10
  1487. 10
  1488. I really value this discussion. I consider myself a stoic, striving to act virtuously and rationally. However, I often feel that pursuing these principles can be like throwing pearls before swine. It sometimes seems irrational to do the right thing when doing the wrong thing is often rewarded and the right thing is sometimes punished. Right being the rational, reproduceable, most feasible good. My approach has been to avoid outright wrongdoing but focus on achieving results through transparent and ethical methods. When confronted, I openly address any perceived shortcomings and invite feedback for improvement—though, in truth, the gaps often arise because others cut corners or rely on dishonesty to achieve exceptional outcomes. This approach has led to two distinct reactions: tremendous respect from coworkers and clients or disdain from leadership and dishonest peers. My challenge lies in determining whether it’s better to continue doing the right thing, even if it leads to professional martyrdom, or to adopt more "grey" strategies to climb the hierarchy. The ultimate goal would be to use that influence to drive more sustainable, ethical practices. Additionally, I am finding that ideas and influence are far less effective these days than simple gas lighting and coercion. Helping people understand the problem and giving them tools to fix it often seems satiating enough. Stirring a bit of fear and vague solutions often seems to produce better short term results. I'm trying not to be too cynical, but it's a bit alarming how often I see this. I guess it's a bit of missing the forest for the trees to give too specific of help. Maybe the only real solution is obsession and drowning in work until the mastery overcomes the problems...
    10
  1489. 10
  1490. 10
  1491. 10
  1492. 10
  1493. 10
  1494. 10
  1495. 10
  1496. 10
  1497. 10
  1498. 10
  1499. 10
  1500. 10
  1501. 10
  1502. 10
  1503. 10
  1504. 10
  1505. 10
  1506. 10
  1507. 10
  1508. 10
  1509. 10
  1510. 10
  1511. 10
  1512. 10
  1513. 10
  1514. 10
  1515. 10
  1516. 10
  1517. 10
  1518. 10
  1519. 10
  1520. 10
  1521. 10
  1522. 10
  1523. 10
  1524. 10
  1525. 10
  1526. 10
  1527. 10
  1528. 10
  1529. 10
  1530. 10
  1531. 10
  1532. 10
  1533. 10
  1534. 10
  1535. 10
  1536. 10
  1537. 10
  1538. 10
  1539. 10
  1540. 10
  1541. 10
  1542. 10
  1543. 9
  1544. 9
  1545. 9
  1546. 9
  1547. 9
  1548. 9
  1549. 9
  1550. 9
  1551. 9
  1552. 9
  1553. 9
  1554. 9
  1555. 9
  1556. 9
  1557. 9
  1558. 9
  1559. 9
  1560. 9
  1561. 9
  1562. 9
  1563. 9
  1564. 9
  1565. 9
  1566. 9
  1567. 9
  1568. 9
  1569. 9
  1570. 9
  1571. 9
  1572. 9
  1573. 9
  1574. 9
  1575. 9
  1576. 9
  1577. 9
  1578. 9
  1579. 9
  1580. 9
  1581. 9
  1582. 9
  1583. 9
  1584. 9
  1585. 9
  1586. 9
  1587. 9
  1588. 9
  1589. 9
  1590. 9
  1591. 9
  1592. 9
  1593. I was so excited to get Aella on. Genuinely, her work on human sexuality is ground breaking and to me a cultural model of when potential future for academia. I really believe her to be an honest searcher for the truth who never manipulated her findings to confirm pre-held beliefs or ideology (which is incredibly rare). As to people who want to pile on Aella because her life style is not approved within your culture. Remember that we (this channel) fight for all cultural groups to be able to life their own way. When you try to force your culture on those around you, you are know different than the woke mob. Also, I would point out that I don't think her lifestyle is that different from the lifestyle your average Redpill guy might choose if born in an attractive female body. Every "deviant" life style is a hypothesis for something that might work. So long as that hypothesis is not predicated on taking other healthy cultures children to survive or hurting other cultural groups we are chill with it. Might her life style spawn some iteration of it that is intergenerationally stable? The future will be the judge of that. Not us. (Though we are open to pontification on the subject.) Also, I would point out that Aella is also of secular Calvinist background and culturally very very close to us (culturally someone I "get" and respect more than any living public intellectual). I suspect this is one of those situations where the "cultural DNA" is very similar but it can lead to widely different expression in different environments (like US vs israel Israel Haredi Jews).
    9
  1594. 9
  1595. 9
  1596. 9
  1597. 9
  1598. 9
  1599. 9
  1600. 9
  1601. 9
  1602. 9
  1603. 9
  1604. 9
  1605. 9
  1606. 9
  1607. 9
  1608. 9
  1609. 9
  1610. 9
  1611. 9
  1612. 9
  1613. 9
  1614. 9
  1615. 9
  1616. 9
  1617. 9
  1618. 9
  1619. 9
  1620. 9
  1621. 9
  1622. 9
  1623. 9
  1624. 9
  1625. 8
  1626. 8
  1627. 8
  1628. 8
  1629. 8
  1630. 8
  1631. 8
  1632. 8
  1633. 8
  1634. 8
  1635. 8
  1636. 8
  1637. 8
  1638. 8
  1639. 8
  1640. 8
  1641. 8
  1642. 8
  1643. 8
  1644. 8
  1645. 8
  1646. 8
  1647. 8
  1648. 8
  1649. 8
  1650. 8
  1651. 8
  1652. 8
  1653. 8
  1654. 8
  1655. 8
  1656. 8
  1657. 8
  1658. 8
  1659. 8
  1660. 8
  1661. 8
  1662. 8
  1663. 8
  1664. 8
  1665. 8
  1666. I discovered them when they only had a few hundred followers. I never subscribed. I remember that night I was deeply in the rabbit hole of fundamentalist Christian nonsense for 7 or so hours because I couldn't stop watching the videos. My mind was too blown away by the people telling such over the top ridiculous things for me to go to sleep. The session started with me being a broke college student looking for the money saving ideas online. I discovered a good channel giving just the kind of advice I needed. I started binge watching the videos on the channel. It was run by a fundamentalists couple. They were quite intelligent and funny. It was obvious the faith was a very big part of their lives, but the channel was not about it. After a few days of watching their videos, the algorithm started thinking I was into the fundamentalism. It started recommending me videos and one boring evening I just tap on the video about modesty. Then another one... One woman said pants on women are crossdressing and the crossdressing is Evil. Then on another video a guy said we should dress up to cover our entire legs and never wear sandals. Shirts should cover elbows and collar bones. Men should only wear pants and women only skirts and dresses. Women should cover their heads while in church... Then a woman went on a long rant about how Satanists are conspiring to turn America into the Satanic caliphate and they are succeeding faster than they expected. Then I watched a few more videos about Satanic caliphate conspiracy. Women wearing pants was a part of it, together with abortion, gay agenda, evolution and Hollywood sitcoms. Then I turned into what can we do to stop them. The best medicine was preaching on the streets. That means walking up to the person whom they see as the victim and talk to them about their need for saviour. Following them where they are going and not leaving them alone until they profess the love of Jesus. The people who needed saving from the Satanist conspiracy can be recognised by their fashion style. Band T-shirts, especially metal bands, women wearing open necklines or unnatural makeup, people with a lot of visible tattoos... The guy ended it all with talking about how Satanists have the police on their side so he had problems with them just for doing the God's work... During that night I also saw the girl defined video. Then a few months later I started seeing the lefties proclaiming they are the worst. If those progressives just saw the videos I watched the night I first saw their channel...
    8
  1667. 8
  1668. 8
  1669. 8
  1670. 8
  1671. 8
  1672. 8
  1673. 8
  1674. 8
  1675. 8
  1676. 8
  1677. As someone who use to work of Kaiser, there is a fundamental misunderstanding by you all on how it operates. Its a three teared system. Hospitals, Clinics and Pharmacy and then the Insurance. The latter two are for profit. The hospital is not for profit. Before the AC Kaiser would use massive amounts of charity care as a tax shelter for all the profits its two other groups made. All the physicians are owners in it. There is no negotiating. The physicians dont even need to pay for their office staff. Kaiser does. Kaiser is a good system because all the treatment is in house and its already paid for. Its why Kaiser has such a low refusal rate. And most of the refusals are for non Kaiser members who want treatment there. Kaiser built its system for its members, not the general public. One of the reasons costs have increased is the State of California forcing health care providers to take Medicaid patients. The State only pays 11 cents on the dollar for treatment, (this is back in 2019) and thats assuming you did everything right. Other wise the payment request is just ignored buy the state. Then there is the annual licensing requirements for Medicare. Again in 2019 licensing for an inpatient bed on just the Medical/Surgical (non telemetry) was over 100k a year. People have no idea how much government sucks out of healthcare. That said, the profits on things like drugs are stupefying. But again, thats the governments fault. Its against the law for pharmacists to even tell patients that they could get a Rx cheaper just by paying cash. Add to it the effects of the ACA limiting charity care right offs and you have exploding costs. It was easy to see this was going to happen. In the case of United Health Care, they have publicly traded stock. And the stock price is going to be defended to the death. Personally I blame the businesses who buy insurance coverage from them. You get what you pay for and you get what you tolerate.
    8
  1678. 8
  1679. 8
  1680. 8
  1681. 8
  1682. 8
  1683. 8
  1684. 8
  1685. 8
  1686. 8
  1687. 8
  1688. 8
  1689. 8
  1690. 8
  1691. 8
  1692. 8
  1693. 8
  1694. 8
  1695. 8
  1696. 8
  1697. 8
  1698. 8
  1699. 8
  1700. 8
  1701. 8
  1702. 8
  1703. 8
  1704. 8
  1705. 8
  1706. 8
  1707. 8
  1708. 8
  1709. 7
  1710. 7
  1711. 7
  1712. 7
  1713. 7
  1714. 7
  1715. 7
  1716. 7
  1717. 7
  1718. 7
  1719. 7
  1720. 7
  1721. 7
  1722. 7
  1723. 7
  1724. 7
  1725. 7
  1726. 7
  1727. 7
  1728. 7
  1729. 7
  1730. 7
  1731. 7
  1732. 7
  1733. 7
  1734. 7
  1735. 7
  1736. 7
  1737. 7
  1738. 7
  1739. 7
  1740. 7
  1741. 7
  1742. 7
  1743. 7
  1744. 7
  1745. 7
  1746. 7
  1747. 7
  1748. 7
  1749. 7
  1750. 7
  1751. 7
  1752. 7
  1753. 7
  1754. 7
  1755. 7
  1756. 7
  1757. 7
  1758. 7
  1759. 7
  1760. 7
  1761. 7
  1762. 7
  1763. 7
  1764. 7
  1765. 7
  1766. 7
  1767. 7
  1768. 7
  1769. 7
  1770. 7
  1771. 7
  1772. 7
  1773. 7
  1774. 7
  1775. 7
  1776. 7
  1777. 7
  1778. 7
  1779. 7
  1780. 7
  1781. 7
  1782. 7
  1783. 7
  1784. 7
  1785. 7
  1786. 1 a video on how the physical environment shapes fertility. (Like in a zoo what types of confinement will animals not reproduce in) and how that might affect humans 2. A video on the overlap and interplay of cultur and geography. Like what types of cultural technology is downstream of geographic determinism and what cultural technology is a new innovation. 3. A video that's less strategic and more tactical on ways to date in cities. And how technology has changed the game. While walking my dog late at night I once saw a boy sneak upto a house his girlfriend climb out the window then they both attempted to sneak off only to be caught by the ring doorbell. 4 a historical anthropology on how the "traditional family structure" is actually just a post WW2 family structures. I remeber reading that in hunter-gatherers, society both mom and dad supplied similar levels of calories. And how a stay at home mom was more a blip in time. And moms used to be more homesteaders/property managers and dads used to be more frontiesmen/rangers (or at least the Revered. Ones) 5 a video on the division of labour and under what scenarios it makes sense/works for you. Like hunter gatherers where split largely into the masculine and feminine. Ps posting like a Google sheets link with links and descriptions of resources might be something worth setting up. I have a DM that has one with all the info relevant to the dnd campaign that's highly useful. I think you can also restrict alot of privileges n sheets so the public won't mess it up.
    7
  1787. 7
  1788. 7
  1789. 7
  1790. 7
  1791. 7
  1792. 7
  1793. 7
  1794. 7
  1795. 7
  1796. 7
  1797. 7
  1798. 7
  1799. 7
  1800. 7
  1801. 7
  1802. 7
  1803. 7
  1804. 7
  1805. 7
  1806. 7
  1807. 7
  1808. 7
  1809. 7
  1810. 7
  1811. 7
  1812. 7
  1813. 7
  1814. 7
  1815. 7
  1816. 7
  1817. 7
  1818. 7
  1819. 7
  1820. 7
  1821. 7
  1822. 7
  1823. 7
  1824. 7
  1825. 7
  1826. 7
  1827. 7
  1828. 7
  1829. 7
  1830. 7
  1831. 7
  1832. 7
  1833. 7
  1834. 7
  1835. 7
  1836. 7
  1837. 7
  1838. 7
  1839. 7
  1840. 7
  1841. 6
  1842. 6
  1843. 6
  1844. 6
  1845. 6
  1846. 6
  1847. 6
  1848. 6
  1849. 6
  1850. 6
  1851. 6
  1852. 6
  1853. 6
  1854. 6
  1855. 6
  1856. 6
  1857. 6
  1858. 6
  1859. 6
  1860. 6
  1861. 6
  1862. 6
  1863. 6
  1864. 6
  1865. 6
  1866. 6
  1867. 6
  1868. 6
  1869. 6
  1870. 6
  1871. 6
  1872. 6
  1873. 6
  1874. 6
  1875. 6
  1876. 6
  1877. 6
  1878. 6
  1879. 6
  1880. 6
  1881. 6
  1882. 6
  1883. 6
  1884. 6
  1885. 6
  1886. 6
  1887. 6
  1888. 6
  1889. 6
  1890. 6
  1891. 6
  1892. 6
  1893. 6
  1894. 6
  1895. 6
  1896. 6
  1897. 6
  1898. 6
  1899. 6
  1900. 6
  1901. 6
  1902. 6
  1903. 6
  1904. 6
  1905. 6
  1906. 6
  1907. 6
  1908. "It is disturbing how the progressives have stabbed the gay rights mocement in the back, then carved up its corpse, and then wear it like some sort of macabre outfit... They have taken their identity and community away from them and said, 'This identity supports us, so if you no longer support us, you no longer have ownership of your identity over your own struggles." I'm not gay. I have a few gay and bisexual leaning friends. I can't speak to the actual culture itself, but I completely understand what you're talking about. It's funny that you describe the progressives this way because this is exactly how some people have described their infiltration and takeover of communities I do have direct contact and experience with, particularly gaming and comic books. I'm glad you finally mentioned Gamergate 2 because the first Gamergate, at least in part, was the first real countercultural pushback against the corruption of "woke" influence. I would personally identify it as the first real counter offensive in the culture war. The progs speak as though they're traumatized by it like it was their Vietnam. Gamers believed that the gaming journalists were on our side because they had previously been important spokespeople for defending the community (I hate that manipulative and contrived term, but I'll use it for lack of a better one). They defended us against accusations from the monoculture that games were directly causing real-life violence and that gamers were inherently violent and therefore suspicious. Fast forward to the early 2010s, and all of a sudden, it was the journalists themselves who were attacking gamers and accusing them of being inherently racist, sexist, and homophobic. The vanguard that once protected us and the art form/entertainment medium had turned on it because progressive activists had started to take it over to use its growing platform and influence to further their own goals. Just like Biden's "if you don't know whether to vote for me or Donald Trump, then you ain't black" comment, gaming journalists systematically published articles involving the phrase "Gamers Are Dead" to denounce the "gamer" identity. This was in reaction to elements of the gaming community identifying and calling out their shady and unethical practices in the industry and the primarily San Fransisco-based media apparatus that covered it. Naturally, of course, they accused these gamers of perpetuating the various ists and phobias, partkcularly sexism at the time. It's only natural now that Gamergate 2 would be about calling attention to the various DEI initiatives/ESG agendas that have taken over, diluted, and ironically homogenized the AAA space, and those who do call this out are again called all of the ists and phobes in the book. I may not be gay, but I know this playbook all too well, and unfortunately, the problem is even worse for comic books. It's a small enough industry that they might just be strangling the mainstream comics industry to death. Marvel and DC are on life support, leaving the independent creator owned works, manga, bande dessinee, and crowd funded comics to keep the art form alive. This is what they do to every single group or subculture they try to co-opt for their revolution. As a comic book reader, I have an example of something very analogous to what you were describing, and you might have a guess at what it is if you've either read the comic or seen the TV show adaptation. What the progressives have done to various groups as you've described it is almost an exact reflection of the Whisperers from The Walking Dead. They're basically a tribalistic anti-civilization doomer cult who try to "return to monke," so to speak. They skin zombies and wear their meat suits as camoflage so that they can safely live and travel among the zombies and even manipulate and stealthily weaponize entire horde movements against their enemies. The only other metaphors that might be equally applicable comparisons are the Borg from Star Trek or the aliens from Invasion of the Body-Snatchers. Ironically, the original 1950s Invasion of the Body-Snatchers was a warning about communist infiltration of local communities and the subversion of American minds. Sorry to go on, but having come from a relatively conservative Christian community, it's fascinating to hear you describe the gay community and their situation in light of my own experiences from the outside looking in. The conservative evangelicals, whatever their faults, were kinda right when they were raising the alarm bells durimg the gay marriage debate a decade ago. Whatever your position on gay marriage, they accurately warned about basically all of the ways in which we've unraveled as a society in regards to sexual orientation and gender identity ever since. Their position was that the gay marriage decision at the SCOTUS opened the floodgates, and everything else that we've seen would follow and try to force itself into the center of the mainstream. They may have been more or less correct in their assessment, but if your explaination of the situation is correct (I think you're more or less on the money), the conservative evangelicals were unable to really do all that much about it because they misidentified the culprit and the nature of the problem. I think that what they were observing and warning about was the progressive activism within LGBT communities who were pushing for subversion and full blown degeneracy, towards kids in partifular. Their mistake was confusing the progressive LGBT activist movement with the actual gay, bisexual, and trans people in the community itself. The biggest irony is that even back then when evangelicals were denouncing gay marriage and making these warnings, regardless of whatever they thought or felt about homosexual actovity on moral and religious grounds, they accepted the terms that the actual gay community had previously been striving for. Talk to some of the most supposedly anti-gay and anti-gay marriage Christians out there, and 9 out of 10 of them would completely agree with the sentiment that gay, bisexual, and trans people shouldn't be abused or killed for simply being what they are. Maybe I'm off on some of this, but if you take the time to reas this mini essay, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on all of this if you have any.
    6
  1909. 6
  1910. 6
  1911. 6
  1912. 6
  1913. 6
  1914. 6
  1915. 6
  1916. 6
  1917. 6
  1918. 6
  1919. 6
  1920. 6
  1921. 6
  1922. 6
  1923. 6
  1924. 6
  1925. 6
  1926. 6
  1927. 6
  1928. 6
  1929. 6
  1930. 6
  1931. 6
  1932. 6
  1933. 6
  1934. 6
  1935. 6
  1936. 6
  1937. 6
  1938. 6
  1939. 6
  1940. 6
  1941. 6
  1942. 6
  1943. 6
  1944. 6
  1945. 6
  1946. 6
  1947. 6
  1948. 6
  1949. 6
  1950. 6
  1951. 6
  1952. 6
  1953. 6
  1954. I am an active member of the LDS Church (generally referred to as the Mormons) and I appreciate the content you share and your perspectives. I believe a large part of how religion affects people is influenced by the ways they were raised within (or not) that religion. Sometimes families will focus more on enforcing the rules and regulations (the policies) than understanding the doctrine that serves as the foundation and guidance for life. I grew up as a very curious and wild child. My family did not try to force me to be strictly feminine (I regularly joined my dad and brothers to go hunting, and I hated shopping). Curiosity was encouraged and I was always asking questions and searching for answers. And a lot of times, I found connections between the more secular subjects and my faith. An astrobiology class in college (at a secular school) strengthened that faith. I nearly went into Anthropology, and have a deep fascination with learning from other cultures and religions. Right now, I currently enjoy the tenets of Taoism and relating them to the doctrine I have as a foundation, that is, that there is a balance to everything (night and day, man and woman) and differences are essential to have this balance. The concept of yin and yang. I would say, the most important thing is to focus on the values being taught than the current house of policies built on them. To me, love and choice are central to my religion. Everyone has the agency to choose how they want to live whether I agree with them or not. It is not my jurisdiction to prevent them from making choices that I don't agree with. But I still make an effort to love those that make the choices I disagree with, because that is the foundation of my faith. Being raised to have a combination of faith and a curious mind has had a huge impact in my life.
    6
  1955. 6
  1956. 6
  1957. 6
  1958. 6
  1959. 6
  1960. 6
  1961. 6
  1962. 6
  1963. 6
  1964. 6
  1965. 6
  1966. 6
  1967. 6
  1968. 6
  1969. 6
  1970. 6
  1971. 6
  1972. 6
  1973. 6
  1974. 6
  1975. Hi, Collins! I've been watching your channel a lot lately. And you inspired me to do an internal exercise of thinking up a religion for myself which strangely enough resulted in me not being able to help myself from following it. It's the most pro-human and pro-natalist cult religion I've ever heard of, even though I've heard of it from myself. Might come off as just ramblings from a mad man. And they are. But here it goes: Essentially I treated designing existence as if I was designing a game from scratch based on having played it for awhile now. So the first concept I'd have to define would be the nature of consciousness, and that would simply have to be the experiencing of a here and now. Nothing beyond that. Now applying it to a singular eternal entity would be terribly lonely, inert and could easily fail catastrophically as there would be no off switch for it, no alternatives and so if it got stuck either phisically or metaphorically it would just be eternal torture. So death would have to be a thing in all this. A way of backing out of an itiration that ran its course of a here and now perceived continuum. So to make it interesting, I'd divide consciousness into several different entities that would themselves divide and generate new entities unique in their code and through the interaction with the environment to generate the illusion of a diverse range of different yourselves. Even though you would essentially experience all of them in different timelines. And generate their existence as whole entities that way. A bit of the psychadelic common description, of "we're all one, man..." As time would appear linear to each during a playthrough, but not in the nature of the game itself. In short, If I were a bored god with eternity to keep me company. I'd want to experience it throught the eyes of finite entities with no knowledge of that fact, which would reset each time and keep themselves company. That's as good and crazy as I can master it through words. Keep up the great work! Love you guys
    6
  1976. 6
  1977. 6
  1978. 6
  1979. 6
  1980. 6
  1981. 6
  1982. 6
  1983. 6
  1984. 6
  1985. 6
  1986. 6
  1987. 6
  1988. 6
  1989. 6
  1990. 6
  1991. 6
  1992. 5
  1993. 5
  1994. 5
  1995. 5
  1996. 5
  1997. 5
  1998. 5
  1999. 5
  2000. 5
  2001. 5
  2002. 5
  2003. 5
  2004. 5
  2005. 5
  2006. 5
  2007. 5
  2008. 5
  2009. 5
  2010. 5
  2011. 5
  2012. 5
  2013. 5
  2014. 5
  2015. 5
  2016. 5
  2017. I often think of George Orwell's quote ā€œPerhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood.ā€ I think that what people want in a relationship is consolation, that is, to find somebody who thinks like you and feels like you. On the internet you can interact with a much broader range of people so it is possible for niche communities to form. You can find people who think exactly the same as you on every topic. You can find people who effectively are you. Consolation is more important than the language you speak. If an image makes you happy but makes somebody else sad you have a divide that cannot be crossed. If you and someone else are excited by the same things you have mental unity. Reflecting on the evolutionary benefits of this: If you and a group of people have the same feelings then you always know what they are thinking. Less unknowns, less chaos, less chance for misunderstandings and higher cohesion. People aren't going to do anything unexpected that would endanger the group. The breakdown of these mutual understandings are dangerous for a group. Furthermore, you and them will want the same things and so you are able to coordinate across great distances and time for the same goal. Even without needing to communicate. Imagine you want to infiltrate an organization, somebody who has the same goals as you works as security in the organization and sees you on the security camera or something. Because you share ideals they can choose not to report it or even alter the footage. You never had to tell them to do that but because you share the same mind and desire the same goals you can operate without contact or planning. Not a perfect example but it serves.
    5
  2018. 5
  2019. 5
  2020. 5
  2021. 5
  2022. 5
  2023. 5
  2024. 5
  2025. 5
  2026. 5
  2027. 5
  2028. 5
  2029. 5
  2030. 5
  2031. 5
  2032. 5
  2033. 5
  2034. 5
  2035. 5
  2036. 5
  2037. 5
  2038. 5
  2039. 5
  2040. 5
  2041. 5
  2042. 5
  2043. 5
  2044. 5
  2045. 5
  2046. 5
  2047. 5
  2048. 5
  2049. 5
  2050. This comment is not about the institute, but I just want to say that I'm addicted to this channel, I like how you discuss subjects and the fact that you don't shy away from talking about controversial issues. That said, I don't agree with a lot of what you say but still I'm addicted because even though you come to different conclusions I like the fact that you have an honest thought process. To say about what I disagree, let's say that, first of all, I'm very against urban monoculture too, also the way you call it is very fit, knowing how to properly name things is an interesting ability, but I see the solution as another form, like for example, you guys are American, against urban monoculture and you search for solutions in an American framework, I'm Latin American and to be honest I don't think North America and Latin America are too different, Latin America is just more Catholic and poorer but other than that things work pretty much the same, for example, both North America and Latin America are monogamous. Anyway, the thing is that our countries as they are currently are broken, but the way I see the solution is to throw culture away and start with something knew while your solutions is working in something that is more in line of what American culture is, actually my goal is not exactly something knew since my philosophy takes a lot from the Hebrew Bible for example, and what is portrayed in the Hebrew Bible is very different from North and Latin America, for example, the people in the Bible is not a monogamist people. I'm not someone who is active in trying to make a movement, maybe in the future although by now I don't have resources to make much of a difference in the world, but anyway, from the people that have more presence I would say someone like Andrew Tate or Turd Flinging Monkey would represent my philosophy and my end goals better than you guys, but still I'm very addictive to watching your content, the way I see both your ideals and the ones of the likes of Andrew Tate are both ideals to advance into the future and avoid being destroyed like the people who are part of the urban monoculture will end up being destroyed, but they haven't been put to a test yet, sure for your guys your way is the superior way but the truth is that only time will tell which strategy to survive and progress is the best. Anyway, as I said, I have my disagreements with you but still your content is very addictive and by interacting with it I feel intelectually stimulated.
    5
  2051. 5
  2052. 5
  2053. 5
  2054. 5
  2055. 5
  2056. 5
  2057. 5
  2058. 5
  2059. 5
  2060. 5
  2061. 5
  2062. 5
  2063. 5
  2064. 5
  2065. 5
  2066. 5
  2067. 5
  2068. 5
  2069. 5
  2070. 5
  2071. 5
  2072. 5
  2073. 5
  2074. 5
  2075. 5
  2076. 5
  2077. 5
  2078. 5
  2079. 5
  2080. 5
  2081. 5
  2082. 5
  2083. 5
  2084. 5
  2085. 5
  2086. 5
  2087. 5
  2088. 5
  2089. 5
  2090. 5
  2091. 5
  2092. 5
  2093. 5
  2094. 5
  2095. 5
  2096. 5
  2097. 5
  2098. 5
  2099. 5
  2100. 5
  2101. 5
  2102. 5
  2103. 5
  2104. 5
  2105. 5
  2106. 5
  2107. 5
  2108. 5
  2109. 5
  2110. 5
  2111. 5
  2112. 5
  2113. 5
  2114. 5
  2115. 5
  2116. 5
  2117. 5
  2118. 5
  2119. 5
  2120. 5
  2121. 5
  2122. 5
  2123. 5
  2124. 5
  2125. 5
  2126. 5
  2127. 5
  2128. 5
  2129. 5
  2130. 5
  2131. 5
  2132. 5
  2133. 5
  2134. 5
  2135. 5
  2136. 5
  2137. 5
  2138. 5
  2139. 5
  2140. 5
  2141. 5
  2142. 5
  2143. 4
  2144. 4
  2145. 4
  2146. 4
  2147. 4
  2148. 4
  2149. 4
  2150. 4
  2151. 4
  2152. 4
  2153. 4
  2154. 4
  2155. 4
  2156. 4
  2157. 4
  2158. 4
  2159. 4
  2160. 4
  2161. 4
  2162. 4
  2163. 4
  2164. 4
  2165. 4
  2166. 4
  2167. 4
  2168. 4
  2169. 4
  2170. 4
  2171. 4
  2172. 4
  2173. 4
  2174. 4
  2175. 4
  2176. 4
  2177. 4
  2178. 4
  2179. 4
  2180. 4
  2181. 4
  2182. 4
  2183. 4
  2184. 4
  2185. 4
  2186. 4
  2187. 4
  2188. 4
  2189. 4
  2190. 4
  2191. 4
  2192. 4
  2193. 4
  2194. 4
  2195. 4
  2196. 4
  2197. 4
  2198. 4
  2199. 4
  2200. 4
  2201. 4
  2202. 4
  2203. 4
  2204. 4
  2205. 4
  2206. 4
  2207. 4
  2208. 4
  2209. 4
  2210. 4
  2211. 4
  2212. 4
  2213. 4
  2214. 4
  2215. 4
  2216. 4
  2217. 4
  2218. 4
  2219. 4
  2220. 4
  2221. 4
  2222. 4
  2223. 4
  2224. 4
  2225. 4
  2226. 4
  2227. 4
  2228. 4
  2229. 4
  2230. 4
  2231. 4
  2232. 4
  2233. 4
  2234. 4
  2235. 4
  2236. 4
  2237. 4
  2238. 4
  2239. 4
  2240. 4
  2241. 4
  2242. 4
  2243. 4
  2244. 4
  2245. 4
  2246. 4
  2247. 4
  2248. 4
  2249. 4
  2250. 4
  2251. 4
  2252. 4
  2253. 4
  2254. 4
  2255. 4
  2256. 4
  2257. 4
  2258. 4
  2259. 4
  2260. 4
  2261. 4
  2262. 4
  2263. 4
  2264. 4
  2265. 4
  2266. 4
  2267. 4
  2268. 4
  2269. 4
  2270. I'm glad you noticed how socialist portions of the Right are. One of my biggest concerns with Vance is that there's a pretty high chance that's who he is. Yes, he has ties to Thiel and worked in venture capital, but I've seen no sign that he won't go for a large administrative state, protectionism, etc; quite the contrary. Between the Natcon people and the right wing billionaires, I'm currently thinking it's the latter who are more likely to be the ones not understanding what they're being sold in this pick. I'm generally fairly worried that socialism is rising in both parties. Most people don't understand economics. Not looking forward to the changes in the next few decades to the United States if nothing happens to change that. The GOP of the past several decades was better on economics than the GOP of today. Along the previous lines, I would caution against confusing your portion of the online community for it in its totality. You not hanging out in a region does not mean that they don't matter. And so I'd think it better to describe what you are talking about as referring to a swath of the modern right than it in its entirety. And, of course, not everyone is as online (or, online in political spheres), which also affects how they process things. You seem to be describing the Natcon people as the same as conservative elites. They are a class of conservative elites, but they are not all of them. I would guess that your typical congressman does not look the same as the Natcon people. I think you're underestimating how popular a porn ban would be. It would still be unpopular, but at least, before its enactment, more people would be in favor of one than you seem to think, including a lot of Christians. I found the Dawkins comment that you referred to interesting, as it's far weaker than the sorts of arguments that Malcolm himself referred to about the Ark—it's not really in any way inconsistent or preposterous to believe in the virgin birth of Christ from a theistic perspective, and his acting as if it is indicates that his hangups are not merely, as you put it, ultralogical.
    4
  2271. 4
  2272. 4
  2273. 4
  2274. 4
  2275. 4
  2276. 4
  2277. 4
  2278. 4
  2279. 4
  2280. 4
  2281. 4
  2282. 4
  2283. 4
  2284. 4
  2285. 4
  2286. 4
  2287. 4
  2288. 4
  2289. 4
  2290. 4
  2291. Appreciate you listening! I absolutely agree, of course, that individual apostles do not establish doctrine. The letters (to Lowry Nelson) were signed by the full first presidency at the time and were clear that they were not establishing doctrine, only restating commonly accepted doctrine. I've reproduced the relevant portion below: "From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. "Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogenous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. "We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine." "Faithfully yours, "(signed) George Albert Smith J. Reuben Clark, Jr. David O. McKayā€ There is no serious dispute as to whether these points were established doctrine at that time; the idea that they were simply policy emerged retroactively. I wouldn't describe my reaction to the letter as being offended. Rather, it made me realize the personal moral risk I was taking by letting the LDS frame influence so much of my thought process.
    4
  2292. 4
  2293. 4
  2294. 4
  2295. 4
  2296. 4
  2297. 4
  2298. 4
  2299. 4
  2300. 4
  2301. 4
  2302. 4
  2303. 4
  2304. 4
  2305. 4
  2306. 4
  2307. 4
  2308. 4
  2309. 4
  2310. 4
  2311. 4
  2312. 4
  2313. 4
  2314. 4
  2315. 4
  2316. 4
  2317. 4
  2318. 4
  2319. 4
  2320. This is an episode I've been waiting for a while. Arguably if you have intelligent enough knights you can ease off on the deontological worldview for them, and instead switch to what I would call the 'questing' model for knights. Consequentialist, but dedicated towards defined goals set by kings that are looking further ahead than the knights. At the core that would still be a system bound by rules. It's an important caveat to add to Malcolm's point at 13:10 I feel, as he presents a very abstracted way to look at life here. In a vacuum, it is correct that you want the kngihts to bring about a king's vision. However in reality the leader will not be able to spot everyting everwhere, and if an opportunity presents itself to a knight they should capitalise properly. Having an honor code and a quest view seems a lot more applicable to reality. See it as a guidance system for a larger group of knights, something that allows them to function as a proper army. Junior officers or in other words, higher ranking knights need to lead small bands below them properly while the Kings are involved with the larger picture. Or let's put it into practice in a non war setting. Generally you will not have an engineer that's designed a bulldozer standing over the shoulder of the machinist making the parts that go into the bulldozer. What goes into turning a block of metal into a functional part is complex, a capable machinist with twenty years experience will still learn new tricks every day. They are however also very much in a knightly occupation: A machinist shapes metal to fit a grander design, and to call back to the example of Bezos no machinist is going to create a company like Amazon. Ergo not only is the 'king' in this case unlikely to know what the knight's considerations are (though this is not impossible) there are likely shortcuts that the machinist can offer to reach a similar result the engineer hasn't thought of. Honor is important due to the limits it places on the amount of damage knights do to each other when they disagree with a member of their own tribe. People can scoff at the idea due to thinking only of those times honor limited damage to an out group, but consider the following: honor is just another way of phrasing high trust society. A genuine high trust society is enormously more productive, capable and resillient than a low trust one. I'm thinking of writing a full on essay in support of the natalist movement and it's about how to draw in blue collar workers and such to the cause. The high tech states that you (as in, the Collins) predict will need someone to service the machines, and I'm unable to find much on what your vision is for selecting and promoting capable blue collar workers who can reprogram machines, maintain them, and improvise solutions in case of unexpected breakdowns. Those will happen and you will need someone to go and turn wrenches when the moment comes. Much as I like to learn from my plumber if he does maintenance on some of my stuff, in the end if shit goes sideways it is going to be vital to have an expert on hand who actually can lay pipe. Penny for your thoughts?
    4
  2321. 4
  2322. 4
  2323. 4
  2324. 4
  2325. 4
  2326. Regarding "taking responsibility is the ultimate burden and relinquishing responsibility is the ultimate luxury" - Malcolm has been saying this for a while, and it just hit me uniquely this time in a way that stuck. I'm remebering a quote that I heard from Tony Robbins: "Good times create weak people. Weak people create bad times, Bad times create strong people. Strong people create good times." Having been listening to the personal development podcast space for a while, I'm hopeful that there's a rising counterculture of high-agency, high-responsibility people who are willing to lean into hard things. One of my hopes was that, in a post-scarcity society-- If no human needs to sit in the driver's seat of an 18-wheeler to transport goods, if no human needs to work at a fast-food restaraunt to serve the food, and if all the stores use self-checkout --- Then won't these bottom-class urban workers be free to do useful things with their lives? Industrial agriculture was necessary to provide for the modern knowledge-work economy of today, so what will happen when the next generation of technology frees up even more workers? On the other hand, I have some personal friends who are stuck working in food service and retail because they chose not develop specialized employable skills. Currently food service and retail are jobs for unskilled workers, and when these unskilled jobs dry up, maybe these people will just retreat from the economy (sitting on the couch all day) instead of taking up the burden to learn skills. One of the other things that I've been thinking about: In our current era of scale, it only takes a few prolific content creators to keep a million people sedated in front of YouTube. It only takes a few large-scale manufacturers to create digital devices to the masses. A few intellectuals (especially Peter Diamandis) have said that people will turn to creative self-expression in a post-scarcity world, but I'm scared that people will choose to be infantilized with media instead. This is a battle that I'm having with myself, that maybe I'm spending too much time with media and need to create space for silence in my life.
    4
  2327. 4
  2328. 4
  2329. 4
  2330. 4
  2331. 4
  2332. 4
  2333. 4
  2334. 4
  2335. 4
  2336. 4
  2337. 4
  2338. 4
  2339. 4
  2340. 4
  2341. 4
  2342. 4
  2343. 4
  2344. 4
  2345. 4
  2346. 4
  2347. 4
  2348. 4
  2349. 4
  2350. 4
  2351. 4
  2352. 4
  2353. 4
  2354. 4
  2355. 4
  2356. 4
  2357. 4
  2358. 3
  2359. 3
  2360. 3
  2361. 3
  2362. 3
  2363. 3
  2364. 3
  2365. 3
  2366. 3
  2367. 3
  2368. 3
  2369. 3
  2370. 3
  2371. 3
  2372. 3
  2373. 3
  2374. 3
  2375. 3
  2376. 3
  2377. 3
  2378. 3
  2379. 3
  2380. 3
  2381. 3
  2382. 3
  2383. 3
  2384. 3
  2385. 3
  2386. 3
  2387. 3
  2388. 3
  2389. 3
  2390. 3
  2391. 3
  2392. 3
  2393. 3
  2394. 3
  2395. 3
  2396. 3
  2397. 3
  2398. 3
  2399. 3
  2400. 3
  2401. 3
  2402. 3
  2403. 3
  2404. 3
  2405. 3
  2406. 3
  2407. 3
  2408. 3
  2409. 3
  2410. 3
  2411. 3
  2412. 3
  2413. 3
  2414. 3
  2415. 3
  2416. 3
  2417. 3
  2418. 3
  2419. 3
  2420. 3
  2421. 3
  2422. 3
  2423. 3
  2424. 3
  2425. 3
  2426. 3
  2427. 3
  2428. 3
  2429. 3
  2430. 3
  2431. 3
  2432. 3
  2433. 3
  2434. 3
  2435. 3
  2436. 3
  2437. 3
  2438. 3
  2439. 3
  2440. 3
  2441. 3
  2442. 3
  2443. 3
  2444. 3
  2445. 3
  2446. 3
  2447. 3
  2448. 3
  2449. 3
  2450. 3
  2451. 3
  2452. 3
  2453. 3
  2454. 3
  2455. 3
  2456. 3
  2457. 3
  2458. 3
  2459. 3
  2460. 3
  2461. 3
  2462. 3
  2463. 3
  2464. 3
  2465. 3
  2466. 3
  2467. 3
  2468. 3
  2469. 3
  2470. 3
  2471. 3
  2472. 3
  2473. 3
  2474. 3
  2475. 3
  2476. 3
  2477. 3
  2478. 3
  2479. 3
  2480. 3
  2481. 3
  2482. 3
  2483. 3
  2484. 3
  2485. 3
  2486. 3
  2487. 3
  2488. 3
  2489. 3
  2490. 3
  2491. 3
  2492. 3
  2493. 3
  2494. 3
  2495. 3
  2496. 3
  2497. 3
  2498. 3
  2499. 3
  2500. 3
  2501. 3
  2502. 3
  2503. 3
  2504. 3
  2505. 3
  2506. 3
  2507. 3
  2508. 3
  2509. 3
  2510. 3
  2511. 3
  2512. 3
  2513. 3
  2514. 3
  2515. 3
  2516. 3
  2517. 3
  2518. 3
  2519. 3
  2520. 3
  2521. 3
  2522. 3
  2523. 3
  2524. 3
  2525. 3
  2526. 3
  2527. 3
  2528. 3
  2529. 3
  2530. 3
  2531. 3
  2532. 3
  2533. 3
  2534. 3
  2535. 3
  2536. 3
  2537. 3
  2538. 3
  2539. 3
  2540. 3
  2541. 3
  2542. 3
  2543. 3
  2544. 3
  2545. 3
  2546. 3
  2547. 3
  2548. 3
  2549. 3
  2550. 3
  2551. 3
  2552. 3
  2553. 3
  2554. 3
  2555. 3
  2556. 3
  2557. 3
  2558. 3
  2559. 3
  2560. 3
  2561. 3
  2562. 3
  2563. 3
  2564. 3
  2565. 3
  2566. 3
  2567. 3
  2568. 3
  2569. 3
  2570. 3
  2571. 3
  2572. 3
  2573. 3
  2574. 3
  2575. 3
  2576. 3
  2577. 3
  2578. 3
  2579. 3
  2580. 3
  2581. Answers to esoteric madness here: 1. Yes it says IN, but Eden just means "pleasure" or "delight", hence in English we just say Paradise i.e Garden of Delight. 2.The Serpent is an old and universal symbol for wisdom. Yes it's not a snake, but it's a metaphor for something extremely knowledgeable and wise. I believe it's the origin of the 3rd eye trope/all seeing eye, as most reptiles in fact have a 3rd eye in the middle of their head, it's not fully developed but can see light and movement, ancient people will have noted this, and come up with the connection of wisdom and "seeing even with your eyes closed", etc. 3. Eve wasn't tricked. God lied, the Serpent told the truth, they did not die, they gained a conscience. Adam and Eve may well be further esoteric titles such as the Serpent. 4. Indeed, the Bible directly states there are other people, not mention during creation, whether they were made by the same god or not seems debatable. 5. Gulf of Persia perhaps, which would imply the Sumerian city of Ur, which makes sense as Hebrews are Babylonian. Or Western Anatolia, which implies Gobekli Tepe and whatever even older civilisations were there. 6. Civilisation likely is 100K years old, but the Bible only dates back to 4000BC, and even that is purely esoteric. 7. The Tree of Life is not in heaven, it's in Eden, the Bible explains that a powerful angel with a flaming sword is set to guard it after what happened with the Serpent and Eve. It's firmly described as being in the centre of the Garden. 8. I'd say the lesson is that both knowledge and wisdom, anything from the mind except from god is bad. If you read the Book of Enoch this is expressly explained. That ignorance is next to godliness. 9. Yes this story is almost universal, and yes the Hebrews seem to of picked it up and taken it to heart. But no they didn't do it altruistically to iron out the kinks, they just massively admired the Hellenic culture brought to them by Alexander the Great, and when Judas Maccabee came to rule a new independent Hebrew state, he structured their nation around a grand opera of a collection and retelling of widely known stories and tropes. It's effectively a state mandated official history, primarily used to give legitimacy to a new state, that wanted to be in the Hellenic world but not ruled by Greek empires. 10. It is a remix of Pandora's Box, it's the explanation of conscience and consciousness. However it's also a remix of Perseus, the Serpent is Perseus, but this time considered evil, seeing his enlightenment as an ungodly curse or burden, not a gift. 11. ? 12. I don't think Eden is some sort of Bifrost, but it's an interesting idea. 13. Matter of opinion. The Bible largely seems to say that since the Fall, life is suffering period, hence the curses god gave. 14. You should read more biology and anatomy. (you wrote 13 again) 15. Stop watching America day time TV documentaries. 16. People have imaginations, we all come up with our own ideas about stuff. That is why the Mono-myth is so intriguing. 17. I don't know if you mean 14 or 16, but don't take philosophy notes from Back to the Future.
    3
  2582. 3
  2583. 3
  2584. 3
  2585. 3
  2586. 3
  2587. 3
  2588. 3
  2589. 3
  2590. 3
  2591. 3
  2592. 3
  2593. 3
  2594. 3
  2595. 3
  2596. 3
  2597. 3
  2598. 3
  2599. 3
  2600. 3
  2601. 3
  2602. 3
  2603. 3
  2604. 3
  2605. 3
  2606. 3
  2607. 3
  2608. 3
  2609. 3
  2610. 3
  2611. 3
  2612. 3
  2613. 3
  2614. 3
  2615. 3
  2616. 3
  2617. 3
  2618. 3
  2619. 3
  2620. 3
  2621. 3
  2622. 3
  2623. 3
  2624. 3
  2625. 3
  2626. 3
  2627. 3
  2628. 2
  2629. 2
  2630. 2
  2631. 2
  2632. 2
  2633. 2
  2634. 2
  2635. 2
  2636. 2
  2637. 2
  2638. 2
  2639. 2
  2640. 2
  2641. 2
  2642. 2
  2643. 2
  2644. 2
  2645. 2
  2646. 2
  2647. 2
  2648. 2
  2649. 2
  2650. 2
  2651. 2
  2652. 2
  2653. 2
  2654. 2
  2655. 2
  2656. 2
  2657. 2
  2658. 2
  2659. 2
  2660. 2
  2661. 2
  2662. 2
  2663. 2
  2664. 2
  2665. 2
  2666. Political coalitions are interesting products of their times and leaderships. Obama was able to fashion and keep together a loose coalition of nerdy autistic "new" atheists, science and tech bros, Silicon Valley as well as more traditional progressive groups - women, minorities, LGBT, etc. JFK had this knack too - he could keep a broad tent - the civil rights movement, the urban machines, organized labor and the radical left together. Their successors couldn't replicate these successes. The Obama coalition was a counter reaction to the George W. Bush presidency, at which conservative Christianity was central. This was just a weaker bloc by the end of the Obama era. Thus the fissures in his coalition became more pressing. Three other politicians would end up fighting over the left overs: Bernie (fiscal progressives), Hillary (social progressives) and Trump (largely white male, flyover country, left behind by globalization). The weakening of the Reagan Coalition meant that the rationalistic tech bros began to see the feminists and social justice warriors as more of a threat because with the weakening of the religious right, the SJWs became the most dogmatic and irrational faction in politics. As such, they then shed the feminists who had been their allies against Bush, and would therefore pick up men's rights and red pill guys. This transitional coalition was briefly divided between its Bernie Brocialist faction and the libertarian and old right types. This division did not last long. Most of the Bernie Bros followed their guy into the democratic coalition and sorta kinda made peace with the feminists. Meanwhile, guys like Jordan Peterson injected conservative individualism into the "red pill coalition" and they coalesced around Trump against Hillary and now Biden. Finally the last step is reconciliation with the religious right. There are quite a few reasons for this, despite the irony inherent to it. One is simple politics. Trump courted the religious right as a traditional base of the GOP. And it paid off. Trump got the votes, the religious right got the supreme court appointees, Roe v Wade got overturned, and the red pill coalition more or less made peace with it because it was another win for their guy. But part of this reconciliation went deeper. The red-pill coalition faced a kind of collective existential crisis after ditching religion back in the early 2000s and then facing a cooling of relations with women in tandum with the already isolating effects of the proliferation of social media. Thus came the male loneliness epidemic, the rise of unattached men, falling rates of romantic and sexual involvement, etc. Women were less effected by this due to their ideological beliefs and tribal loyalties filling in the "meaning and purpose" gap. In hindsight, the turning to religion of such men will seem like an obvious reinvention of the wheel - the monastic traditions with their vows of celibacy and chastity are such an obvious hand-in-glove fit for precisely this kind of scenario and have been for millennia. While most men won't go that far, religion providing an answer for men cut adrift by social disfunction and widespread nihilism and cynicism is just what religion has always done. For good or ill, expect more male devotion to the Abrahamic traditions going forward. Finally, the self-improvement ethos prevalent in the red pill coalition made reconciliation with Christianity all the easier, given the latter's emphasis on self reflection, personal growth and repentance when warranted. It will be interesting to see where this ends up in the future. I think the red pill coalition's next big thing might be to court not just the white male working class, but actual organized labor. That will be a tall order as the GOP and the unions have been enemies for time out of hand. But Trump's nomination of J.D Vance as his running mate seems like a nod in this direction.
    2
  2667. 2
  2668. 2
  2669. 2
  2670. 2
  2671. 2
  2672. 2
  2673. 2
  2674. 2
  2675. 2
  2676. 2
  2677. 2
  2678. 2
  2679. 2
  2680. 2
  2681. 2
  2682. 2
  2683. 2
  2684. 2
  2685. 2
  2686. 2
  2687. 2
  2688. 2
  2689. 2
  2690. 2
  2691. 2
  2692. 2
  2693. 2
  2694. 2
  2695. 2
  2696. 2
  2697. 2
  2698. 2
  2699. 2
  2700. 2
  2701. 2
  2702. 2
  2703. 2
  2704. 2
  2705. 2
  2706. 2
  2707. 2
  2708. 2
  2709. 2
  2710. 2
  2711. 2
  2712. 2
  2713. 2
  2714. 2
  2715. 2
  2716. 2
  2717. 2
  2718. 2
  2719. 2
  2720. 2
  2721. 2
  2722. 2
  2723. 2
  2724. 2
  2725. 2
  2726. 2
  2727. 2
  2728. 2
  2729. 2
  2730. 2
  2731. 2
  2732. 2
  2733. 2
  2734. 2
  2735. 2
  2736. 2
  2737. 2
  2738. 2
  2739. 2
  2740. 2
  2741. 2
  2742. 2
  2743. 2
  2744. 2
  2745. 2
  2746. 2
  2747. 2
  2748. 2
  2749. 2
  2750. 2
  2751. 2
  2752. 2
  2753. 2
  2754. 2
  2755. 2
  2756. 2
  2757. 2
  2758. 2
  2759. 2
  2760. 2
  2761. 2
  2762. 2
  2763. 2
  2764. 2
  2765. 2
  2766. 2
  2767. 2
  2768. 2
  2769. 2
  2770. 2
  2771. 2
  2772. 2
  2773. 2
  2774. 2
  2775. 2
  2776. 2
  2777. 2
  2778. 2
  2779. 2
  2780. 2
  2781. 2
  2782. 2
  2783. 2
  2784. 2
  2785. 2
  2786. 2
  2787. 2
  2788. 2
  2789. 2
  2790. 2
  2791. 2
  2792. 2
  2793. 2
  2794. 2
  2795. 2
  2796. 2
  2797. 2
  2798. 2
  2799. 2
  2800. 2
  2801. 2
  2802. 2
  2803. 2
  2804. 2
  2805. 2
  2806. 2
  2807. 2
  2808. 2
  2809. 2
  2810. 2
  2811. 2
  2812. 2
  2813. 2
  2814. 2
  2815. 2
  2816. 2
  2817. 2
  2818. 2
  2819. 2
  2820. 2
  2821. 2
  2822. 2
  2823. 2
  2824. 2
  2825. 2
  2826. 2
  2827. 2
  2828. 2
  2829. 2
  2830. 2
  2831. 2
  2832. 2
  2833. 2
  2834. 2
  2835. 2
  2836. 2
  2837. 2
  2838. 2
  2839. 2
  2840. 2
  2841. 2
  2842. 2
  2843. 2
  2844. 2
  2845. 2
  2846. 2
  2847. 2
  2848. 2
  2849. 2
  2850. 2
  2851. 2
  2852. 2
  2853. 2
  2854. 2
  2855. 2
  2856. 2
  2857. 2
  2858. 2
  2859. 2
  2860. 2
  2861. 2
  2862. 2
  2863. 2
  2864. 2
  2865. 2
  2866. 2
  2867. 2
  2868. 2
  2869. 2
  2870. 2
  2871. 2
  2872. 2
  2873. 2
  2874. 2
  2875. 2
  2876. 2
  2877. 2
  2878. 2
  2879. 2
  2880. 2
  2881. 2
  2882. 2
  2883. 2
  2884. 2
  2885. 2
  2886. 2
  2887. 2
  2888. 2
  2889. 2
  2890. 2
  2891. 2
  2892. 2
  2893. 2
  2894. 2
  2895. 2
  2896. 2
  2897. 2
  2898. 2
  2899. 2
  2900. 2
  2901. 2
  2902. 2
  2903. 2
  2904. 2
  2905. 2
  2906. 2
  2907. 2
  2908. 2
  2909. 2
  2910. 2
  2911. 2
  2912. 2
  2913. 2
  2914. 2
  2915. 2
  2916. 2
  2917. 2
  2918. 2
  2919. 2
  2920. 2
  2921. 2
  2922. 2
  2923. 2
  2924. 2
  2925. 2
  2926. 2
  2927. 2
  2928. 2
  2929. 2
  2930. 2
  2931. 2
  2932. 2
  2933. 2
  2934. Love your channel. Deeply upset by this episode. As a centrist global warming absolutely should be non-partisan and the number one issue for anyone who cares about the overall future of humanity. The reason that we care about global warming in an accelerated rate is 1) due to the fact that the extreme weather conditions will predominantly affect humans in vulnerable areas like Pacific Islands, but obviously humans in economically more productive countries as well. 2) global warming creates increased zoonotic infections, asthma, medication storage issues etc for humans everywhere eg covid. 3) although we can be upset that people who work for the sake of these issues are not effective (agree) and that individual level changes don’t help much (unless they can affect votes to enact systemic change), this is often due to lack of money or lack of appropriate managers heading the fight, or that it’s overly bureaucratic. The CIA has had representation on this issue for literally decades, and people who worked with it BEMOAN the fact that it was completely destroyed by bureaucrats, politicians and yellow tape. The solution is that big business owners need to make this a priority, governments need to give serious tax incentives for people who are willing to put effort into creating long-term solutions for this, we need smarter brighter people attached to it regarding renewable energy and sequestration… not just people who have more altruistic world views. It’s definitely not just the flowers. And almost all the educated elite concerned about this know that it’s not alterable at an individual level that is quite frankly the government as backed by current big business gaslighting individuals into thinking it’s their fault, and truly the best way to ensure the next generation produces at a greater scale in economically productive countries is addressing this issue as the number one. Affordable childcare or better parental leave options and tax breaks for children would be solution number 2. I work with gen z on rotating basis, by the hundreds - they are terrified of bringing kids into the world where they feel perceived natural instability, and where government is letting them down to spearhead a change.
    2
  2935. 2
  2936. 2
  2937. 2
  2938. 2
  2939. 2
  2940. 2
  2941. 2
  2942. 2
  2943. 2
  2944. 2
  2945. 2
  2946. 2
  2947. 2
  2948. 2
  2949. 2
  2950. 2
  2951. 2
  2952. 2
  2953. 2
  2954. 2
  2955. 2
  2956. 2
  2957. 2
  2958. 2
  2959. 2
  2960. 2
  2961. 2
  2962. 2
  2963. 2
  2964. 2
  2965. 2
  2966. 2
  2967. 2
  2968. 2
  2969. 2
  2970. 2
  2971. 2
  2972. 2
  2973. 2
  2974. 2
  2975. 2
  2976. 2
  2977. 2
  2978. 2
  2979. 2
  2980. 2
  2981. 2
  2982. 2
  2983. 2
  2984. 2
  2985. 2
  2986. 2
  2987. 2
  2988. 2
  2989. 2
  2990. 2
  2991. 2
  2992. 2
  2993. 2
  2994. 2
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. So you're saying . . . as the production of something becomes 'optimised' the possibilities for variation from the optimum plummet. ie Optimising cars for minimal wind resistance comes to mind. Another analogy I recall is Brachiopod fossils. There was a tendency for a persistent (10M's to 100M years) (root) species occupying a given ocean niche to spin off short lived species with wildly different shell ornamentation that evolve to occupy nearby niches (say muddier or stonier). Ultimately, though, the root species didn't have the genetic potential (constrained by path dependence) for a new species derived from it to optimally exploit such niches and eventually a different animal family (Gastropoda bivalvia) has taken over. So, if you want to gather social influence, there is maybe 2 paths: 1) become an excellent Youtube (or Tiktok) influencer, who accidentally optimises for the selection algorthim (say "Primitive Technology") or who deliberately optimises for the selection algorthim (say "Mr Beast") 2) think differently about social influence (ie how do bivalves differ from brachiopods? Physiologically, life strategy, ?) My thought for you (@SimoneandMalcolm), in looking at current North American society post covid is to focus towards both the current pre-K and homeschooling (pro-family/anti-orthodoxy) move and towards the emergence of AI ie build a trial AI tutor. I expect lots of other people are thinking this, so maybe seek them out. An AI is the way to get away from the Baumol effect of needing human teachers (ie to industrial scale personalised teaching). While an LLM based AI hallucinating is much like an adult spinning a just so story for kids, its real world consequences are much less than in the adult professions of say Engineering, Law, etc All the best
    1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. 1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. 1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. I've long suspected that Biden wouldn't be the 2024 Democratic nominee, but I've been hearing good arguments lately that might be changing my mind on that. People are obviously clamoring for a new candidate now, but I've been hearing more and more frequently that the rumor mill in DC suggests that they're stuck with Biden whether they want him or not. They simply don't have and can't get all the money they need in order to successfully field a brand new candidate so late in the game with only 4 months and change before the election. Their only chance at a new candidate is forcing Biden to resign and following the chain of succession, but as you so well pointed out, Harris might be even more hated than Biden is. Hypothetically, they might be able to throw in somebody else (and whether they end up running this year or in 2028, I think Gavin Newsom and Michelle Obama would be dangerous and difficult opponents), but I'm pretty sure it's against campaign finance law to just give Biden's war chest over to his newly appointed successor. If they were planning to replace him, this had to have heen financially planned well in advance, and the fact they haven't pulled the trigger on replacing Biden yet with such little time left on the clock suggests to me that either the Democratic party were deluded enough to believe it wouldn't be necessary or that there was enough internal pushback from Biden and his people to prevent that from happening. Either way, regardless of the eleventh hour panicking that's been going on, I don't think they have any good options left. Based on the various stories I've heard from many people who have met or personally know Donald Trump, I think Simone has the better read on who he actually is as a person. I think he absolutely did start to feel bad for Biden at some point in the debate. My guess is that it was probably around the time he said that he had no clue what Biden was saying. I think be fumbled the ball a bit in his response to a couple of questions that he should have had locked down (his Charlottesville response comes immediately to mind), but on the whole, he did exactly what he needed to do. Even though CNN and the Biden team made sure that all of the cards were stacked in Biden's favor, what they didn't seem to realize, which thankfully Trump and his team did, is that all Trump needed to do was look composed, competant, and sensible, then just let Biden talk long enough to stumble into an embarassing senior moment. Unfortunately, for everyone involved and everyone who watched, the entire debate turned into an embarrassing senior moment...
    1
  3179. 1
  3180. 1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207. 1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273. 1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. I should preface this by saying that i really hope to see this channel grow. Both of you have magnetic personalities, and so many of your ideas feel like more refined versions of things that've been stewing in my mind for a while now. I'm kinda obsessed. However, I'm surprised to see you two speaking with so much insight about this topic. When I first stumbled across this channel, I wrote you off as these exact sort of people, from the thumbnail alone. I wouldn't have clicked on it at all if it weren't for the contrast between your appearances and the channel name. Ive heard the term "based" referred to as an alt-right dogwhistle. So seeing a couple of obvious lefty pseudo-intellectuals using the term as part of their channel name was definitely an attention grabber. I think my initial judgement has a lot to do with Simone's glasses. I figured maybe it was a calculated thing to help stand out visually from other aspiring influencers in your thumbnails, but then i saw the reddit reply video where you talked about it. I think internet people have already caught on to the "wearing glasses to signal intellect" thing. Wearing old thick-rimmed glasses with the lenses popped out is a known hipster stereotype. Full moon glasses also give off that vibe. To achieve that effect better, I think you should ditch the Lakitu goggles and consider similarly shaped glasses with thinner rims. Or thick rimmed glasses with a more conventional shape. Having both makes it clear you dont actually need the glasses and are wearing them as an ego thing. Sorry if this comes across as needlessly aggressive. I'm also autistic and come from a position of wishing people would've been more frank with me about how some of my own fashion decisions came off. My high school bowlcut had me looking like simple jack lol. I have tried to showing this channel to a friend and had an issue getting him to engage with it, i think for the same reasons that made me initially sceptical. The glasses are definitely iconic, and have utility that way. I'm sure you know that. But they might also present an obstacle by causing people to initially underestimate your level of self awareness, thereby casting doubt on the quality of your takes.
    1
  3278. 1
  3279. 1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283. 1
  3284. Never thought that Jon Stewart could be the Democrats antidote to rid the woke left, but boy does that make sense! If the Republicans were able to allow Trump, a celebrity businessman with zero political experience, to win the primary nomination AND win presidency, then Democrats have their shot too if they brought Stewart in. The only problem? Jon has very vocal in calling out the bs but he keeps bending the knee. Notice when Jon left the Daily Show and just kept it low, there was NO ONE to keep the left in check. Maher dropped his disdain for the woke, but I don’t think he grasps he is one of the condescending leftists who contributed to giving these people more power to abuse. Meanwhile Jon calls out the BS but is not condescending to that extent he won’t listen to other people’s concerns and not talk down to them. He might rebuttal with a quirky joke that can sting, but Jon at least is aware how out of touch the Democrats, not just the left, the Democrats have been. It’s too bad he joined with the TDS cause if he didn’t go down that avenue, I think he would have won a lot of the early Trump supporters that originally were in Obama’s camp but were labeled as deplorables, racist, and garbage just because they believed in Trump. And while I don’t always agree with Jon, I do admire his dedication to actually look after the firefighters who are going through severe health issues related to being in the action of 9/11. So Jon at least has one little experience with politics and he has to go to Congress to get the fund to look after our New York heroes. It’s funny how at least HE has proven to be more useful than Hollywood in the last 10 years and he was missing for most of it lol.
    1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1
  3295. 1
  3296. 1
  3297. 1
  3298. 1
  3299. 1
  3300. 1
  3301. 1
  3302. 1
  3303. 1
  3304. 1
  3305. 1
  3306. 1
  3307. 1
  3308. 1
  3309. 1
  3310. 1
  3311. 1
  3312. 1
  3313. 1
  3314. 1
  3315. 1
  3316. 1
  3317. 1
  3318. 1
  3319. 1
  3320. 1
  3321. 1
  3322. 1
  3323. 1
  3324. 1
  3325. 1
  3326. 1
  3327. 1
  3328. 1
  3329. 1
  3330. 1
  3331. 1
  3332. 1
  3333. 1
  3334. 1
  3335. 1
  3336. 1
  3337. 1
  3338. 1
  3339. 1
  3340. 1
  3341. 1
  3342. 1
  3343. 1
  3344. 1
  3345. 1
  3346. 1
  3347. 1
  3348. 1
  3349. 1
  3350. 1
  3351. 1
  3352. 1
  3353. 1
  3354. 1
  3355. 1
  3356. 1
  3357. 1
  3358. 1
  3359. 1
  3360. 1
  3361. 1
  3362. 1
  3363. 1
  3364. 1
  3365. 1
  3366. 1
  3367. 1
  3368. 1
  3369. 1
  3370. 1
  3371. 1
  3372. 1
  3373. 1
  3374. 1
  3375. 1
  3376. 1
  3377. 1
  3378. 1
  3379. 1
  3380. 1
  3381. 1
  3382. 1
  3383. 1
  3384. 1
  3385. 1
  3386. 1
  3387. 1
  3388. 1
  3389. 1
  3390. 1
  3391. 1