Message from @atavisionary
Discord ID: 365931299883712543
changing your involuntary reaction to it
hence its a mind control phrase
It's making it less simple.
it need not be there
The page could have been reduced to a handful of sentences.
People don't need to know a whole lot about this.
true
"blind guy calls you and asks for help, you help him as you can see"
The end
the real question is
how could it be used for data mining
blind people shouldn't be helped by complete strangers through apps
They should learn to get by life, being blind
And have a seeing wife/relative close by regularly to help
No one else needs to concern themselves with them
You can be nice to them when you encounter them
Shouldn't go farther than that
is it like Atta boy Atavisionary
or Atavism, Atavism-visionary
I actually have a lot more respect for milo now. Well, except he didn't write any of his own shit. still, he was legit interacting with all parts of the alt right in a basically sincere way
Why would you respect this faggot?
cause he mainstreamed shit
is the idea
Nothing he says is interesting
lol, nuance and degree is important
And he's a bad person
read Jonathan Haidt's Righteous Mind @atavisionary
you'll like it
ya, he was only concerned about building his brand, but he connected moldbug to the president
yes, I saw that
I will look into it @fallot
he connected moldbug to the president. Like wow.
Moldbug is worse than Milo
but I see your point
he is not wrong, the left is proof of that.
"Simplicity is the cure for violence. For example, if we postulate an imaginary oracle that could predict the outcome of any battle, we could eliminate war. The predicted loser would have no incentive but to concede to the demands of the predicted winner. But since there is no such oracle, the only way to avert violence is to define an algorithm simple enough for both sides and an independent third party to execute with minimal chance of disagreement, and endow that third party with whatever Power it needs to enforce that result – and, ideally, no more.
The word “violence” demands clarification. Violence does not always involve bloodshed. The point of violence is for side A to use “any means necessary” to convince side B that resisting some outcome is counterproductive. Thus we consider robbery a violent crime, even if no one is hurt.
Similarly, a battle may be resolved by agreeing to fight not with real guns but with paintball guns, and respecting the outcome. Or by setting rules that reduce but do not eliminate the physical damage of battle, and have no significant effect on the result. Symbolic and restricted violence of this sort is common in primitive humans, and indeed is the general rule in the animal kingdom. In general the goal of symbolic violence is to figure out who would win in an unrestricted fight to the death. As long as the results of these processes are identical, there is no incentive for either party to deviate from the symbolic convention. And even if they are not quite identical, the parallel may be good enough.
Another symbolic way to resolve a battle, for instance, might be to simply count the number of soldiers who show up on each side. We see here the roots of democracy, which once factions emerge – as, the Federalists notwithstanding, they always do – is a sort of regularized, symbolic civil war. It is no surprise that when you try to impose democracy on a country in which some faction believes that a real civil war will produce better results, the symbolic restraints tend to evaporate.
Therefore, when we define Power as ambiguity and ambiguity as complexity, we can consider the decline from the elaborate precision of medieval law, with its principle of rex sub lege, to 20th-century democracy and Holmesian “legal realism,” as a self-reinforcing complexity collapse – a process surely not unfamiliar to any programmer."
lol
sounds reasonable to me, especiallyy the part about symbolic violence being the norm in intra sexual competition within a species