The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Buzzfeed Journalist: Sure, Maybe I Got the Facts Wrong, But I Was Right to Hate That Kid's Face. Why? Because I Hate Faces Like That!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

So, just because you haters have … facts on your side doesn’t mean I don’t get to hate some random kid, you hateful haters you.

 
Hide 66 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. You can understand that the situation was more complex than the first video and still recognize why the sight of that face caused a visceral reaction in so many.

    Oh, trust me, we can recognize why. Envy and hatred, that’s why.

    • Troll: Tiny Duck.
  2. There needs to be regulation of the media and colleges. Anyone making a big deal out of these problems without advocating for solutions is just bullshitting and distracting you (e.g Trump).

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Both the media and academia need to be splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds. They cannot be regulated.
    , @Boethiuss

    There needs to be regulation of the media and colleges. Anyone making a big deal out of these problems without advocating for solutions is just bullshitting and distracting you (e.g Trump).
     
    Absolutely there does. But we're not going to get it while Trump is still President or de facto leader of the GOP.

    We might even "win" this little skirmish based on a significant number of people who have been redpilled as a consequence. The problem is, people can still be redpilled and still oppose Donald Trump, and that's what we have now.

    You can see it in some of Steve's recent complaints against Open Borders. The other side likes to say, "We're not necessarily in favor of Open Borders, but....", we oppose the wall, we favor DACA, etc, etc. And on that score, they're probably right, they're not. There are some Open Borders people around, and as much as anything they're likely to be weak-Right libertarians.

    But as a practical matter, the other side will be functionally Open Borders as long as Trump is President. Anything that restricts immigration is going to be perceived as a political win for President Trump, and they want Trump to lose, above whatever policies are in play and their consequences.

    President Trump is a polarizing figure. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, Reagan was polarizing too. The problem is that, whereas Reagan polarized us into a majority and them into a minority, Trump is the other way around. We are a minority and they are a majority and nothing meaningfully good is going to happen for us until that is resolved.
  3. • Agree: Couch Scientist
    • Replies: @CrunchybutRealistCon
    The demand for White BoogieMen, and other Villains from Media Narratives is far in excess of supply.
    Perhaps it's time for the SPLC & ADL to swing into action with their million$ and start hiring actors and agents provocateurs to fill this demand. No doubt they've done it before.
    If the supply won't meet the demand, a lot of these agitated Leftists are going to have nervous breakdowns this year.
  4. A smirking white face is a punchable face.

  5. From elementary school through college I went to school with sheltered upper middle class white boys who could DEVASTATE with a smirk. A facial guesture that weaponized their privilege. Infuriatingly you can’t fight that fucking smirk with a punch or words.

    • Replies: @anon1
    We can devastate you with a smirk? Man you people are weak.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Tiny, You just plagiarzed that comment. Have you no shame, I ask with a smirk on my face. You , however, probably have a Smurf on your face.
    , @Counterinsurgency
    Tiny Duck is a great example. He can't live in industrialized society, and doesn't know why. He hates it. Things that I put up with, without even noticing, he finds intolerable because they are _one more thing_ that shows he can't live in the industrial society that surrounds him. That's a good part of the motive for the Combat, Glory, and the Loot of Empire (CG&L0E) program he's advocating (or perhaps threatening).

    Readers might look at Somerset Maugham’s ‘The Alien Corn" for a talented author's depiction of this general situation.

    Tiny, I wish I had a good solution for this. If I did, I'd be applying it to myself. I don't.

    Counterinsurgency
    , @Anon
    You never went near any upper middle class people of any race.
  6. @Guy De Champlagne
    There needs to be regulation of the media and colleges. Anyone making a big deal out of these problems without advocating for solutions is just bullshitting and distracting you (e.g Trump).

    Both the media and academia need to be splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds. They cannot be regulated.

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
    That's a form of regulation dumb dumb.
  7. Modest proposal:

    Mr. Unz subtracts all TD-posts and replies to same from Steve’s yearly comment count.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Please, please, at least do that. Best would be to bloc Tiny Duck in all his iterations, second best would be for people to stop responding to him, but apparently they can’t control themselves.
  8. It’s clear that we need to start measuring skulls so we can scientifically identify the most evil white men without having to go through the trouble of actually see or worse yet prove them doing something evil.

  9. Wow, Erik Soderstrom on Twitter linked a video that proves Phillips provoked the white kid.

    Eʀɪᴋ Sᴏᴅᴇʀsᴛʀᴏᴍ@soderstrom
    Replying to @ladyswarley
    Here you go. The kid doesn’t move; Phillips walks up to him and starts banging the drum in his face.

  10. @Tiny Duck.
    From elementary school through college I went to school with sheltered upper middle class white boys who could DEVASTATE with a smirk. A facial guesture that weaponized their privilege. Infuriatingly you can’t fight that fucking smirk with a punch or words.

    We can devastate you with a smirk? Man you people are weak.

    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    That is an odd admission, isn't it?
  11. @Guy De Champlagne
    There needs to be regulation of the media and colleges. Anyone making a big deal out of these problems without advocating for solutions is just bullshitting and distracting you (e.g Trump).

    There needs to be regulation of the media and colleges. Anyone making a big deal out of these problems without advocating for solutions is just bullshitting and distracting you (e.g Trump).

    Absolutely there does. But we’re not going to get it while Trump is still President or de facto leader of the GOP.

    We might even “win” this little skirmish based on a significant number of people who have been redpilled as a consequence. The problem is, people can still be redpilled and still oppose Donald Trump, and that’s what we have now.

    You can see it in some of Steve’s recent complaints against Open Borders. The other side likes to say, “We’re not necessarily in favor of Open Borders, but….”, we oppose the wall, we favor DACA, etc, etc. And on that score, they’re probably right, they’re not. There are some Open Borders people around, and as much as anything they’re likely to be weak-Right libertarians.

    But as a practical matter, the other side will be functionally Open Borders as long as Trump is President. Anything that restricts immigration is going to be perceived as a political win for President Trump, and they want Trump to lose, above whatever policies are in play and their consequences.

    President Trump is a polarizing figure. That wouldn’t necessarily be a problem, Reagan was polarizing too. The problem is that, whereas Reagan polarized us into a majority and them into a minority, Trump is the other way around. We are a minority and they are a majority and nothing meaningfully good is going to happen for us until that is resolved.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Trump and ourselves can make it so hot for the ruling class that they back down. Start seizing estates and house refugees in Bill Gates mansions.
    , @Counterinsurgency
    And perhaps the resolution won't be good.

    The other side has been functionallly Open Boarders since c.a. AD 1965. Onc could make a case that they have been Open Borders since c.a. AD 1845, despite anti-immigration riots that make antifa look like pacifists. During almost all of that interval they have sworn that they were closed borders. Trump caused this current fight only in the sense that he declined to participate in a massacre from the receiving end.

    You can always stop somebody from murdering you if you commit suicide quickly enough. Failure to commit suicide doesn't make you responsible for your own murder, nor does is exculpate the actual murderer. The population of Cambodia was not responsible for the genocide there, the Khmer Rouge were.

    Counterinsurgency
    , @Guy De Champlagne
    Yes, Trump giving people lots of rational reasons to be angry at him and then inspiring many more irrational ones is a weakness, not a strength no matter how emotionally satisfying it is for his supporters. He should of gotten off twitter and become presidential when he wrapped up the GOP nomination, when he first said he would.

    My point was that people joining in on the two minutes of hate against the media to counter their two minutes are making the same mistake, confusing something being emotionally satisfying with it being rational.
  12. @Tiny Duck.
    From elementary school through college I went to school with sheltered upper middle class white boys who could DEVASTATE with a smirk. A facial guesture that weaponized their privilege. Infuriatingly you can’t fight that fucking smirk with a punch or words.

    Tiny, You just plagiarzed that comment. Have you no shame, I ask with a smirk on my face. You , however, probably have a Smurf on your face.

    • Replies: @Tiny Duck.
    I’d proudly stand with Native American and U.S. Military Veteran Nathan Phillips rather than bend over for the Red Hat #MAGAt traitors who abet Putin’s debasement of America.
  13. Steve,

    As a different, younger, more ¡Vibrant! wise Latina recently said “I think there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.” So while Ms. Peterson may not be factually correct, she is morally right, and that’s the Most Important Thing of All. And if you are concerned about BuzzFeed being factually correct, you are morally wrong and reprellent. And you notice too many things, Mister.

  14. @Boethiuss

    There needs to be regulation of the media and colleges. Anyone making a big deal out of these problems without advocating for solutions is just bullshitting and distracting you (e.g Trump).
     
    Absolutely there does. But we're not going to get it while Trump is still President or de facto leader of the GOP.

    We might even "win" this little skirmish based on a significant number of people who have been redpilled as a consequence. The problem is, people can still be redpilled and still oppose Donald Trump, and that's what we have now.

    You can see it in some of Steve's recent complaints against Open Borders. The other side likes to say, "We're not necessarily in favor of Open Borders, but....", we oppose the wall, we favor DACA, etc, etc. And on that score, they're probably right, they're not. There are some Open Borders people around, and as much as anything they're likely to be weak-Right libertarians.

    But as a practical matter, the other side will be functionally Open Borders as long as Trump is President. Anything that restricts immigration is going to be perceived as a political win for President Trump, and they want Trump to lose, above whatever policies are in play and their consequences.

    President Trump is a polarizing figure. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, Reagan was polarizing too. The problem is that, whereas Reagan polarized us into a majority and them into a minority, Trump is the other way around. We are a minority and they are a majority and nothing meaningfully good is going to happen for us until that is resolved.

    Trump and ourselves can make it so hot for the ruling class that they back down. Start seizing estates and house refugees in Bill Gates mansions.

  15. Why someone whose family name is Petersen hates whites so much? The self-hatred by a good portion of white people needs some explaining (yeah, I know this is in part projecting moral superiority over other whites, but this cannot be the whole answer, since this doesn’t happen in other races)

    • Replies: @anon
    we seem to be evolving to organize around ideal instead of genes and jews realizing this take advantage of the situation and we because ideals cant stop it. cuckservatives to some extent recognize our peril but actually think it better our people culture nations die than we betray our ideals. its like the capitalist thing sure capitalism's great because it serves us so well but cucks think its great even when it doesn't. seems we are repurposing the religious instinct genes and as we did with religion ( and how this ball got rolling) intellectualizing how many angels can dance which gives it the emotional impetus and accessible to the cognitively deficient, low church high church. so its tribalism in a deeper sense because all religion is tribalism, our tribalisms inverted.and for elites in a sense its not as inverted its a synthetic tribe of elites but the whites know deep down the others dont really qualify and the muds also know theyre on AA but status is maybe more primal than tribe.
    the only way you break this is going deeper still fairness is deep but its hard to make te case when they hold the mic which is why they are fighting us off the mic, they understand they have reached the point of such absurdity the satire will devastate them almost instantly if they allow it because even the cog challenged can get the cog dissonance at this stage. if we cant get the mic we have to wait or bring on the fight or flight instinct that can take longer than one thinks freezing seems plausible for a long time
    , @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    The fewer whites around, the more special her attention-seeking self becomes.
  16. Anne Helen Who? And why should I care?

  17. Today I’m going to libel an entire “overwhelmingly blond” UVa frat house based on some bullshit story about some young men who raped a girl on a floor covered in broken glass.

    Then I’m going to accuse a Supreme Court nominee of attempted rape over 30 years ago and grow indignant when you ask why I never mentioned it earlier and have no evidence to back me up.

    Then I’m going to tell you that some white teenager deserves to be demonized from sea to shining sea, because I don’t like his white face.

    Then I’m going to dance on the graves of a bunch of recently deceased elderly white Britons, World War 2 vets included, and celebrate their deaths because it supposedly means that a majority of Britons are now opposed Brexit.

    Then I’m going to remind you that Republicans are never going to win an election again because we are busy race-replacing you with millions of brown illegals.

    Because I’m a modern Leftist, and that’s what I do.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
    All that is happening, but it is not leftism.

    One fine day, when it's too late (tomorrow would be a good day) you will understand that misidentifiying the problem actually hinders finding a solution to the problem.

    Rule of thumb: the ruling class is not leftist. Therefore, if the ruling class wants something, there should be a strong suspicion that it's not a leftist goal.
  18. Seriously, though, when that Black Hebrew called those Native Americans “Uncle Tomahawks” I began weeping uncontrollably. I’m still weeping. Someone make it stop! I can’t keep hurting like this. It’s unbearable.

  19. We can explain his own Bishop selling him out to the howling mob by virtue of the well-known observation that it is better for one man to have his life ruined than the entire nation be accused of racism.

    It’s something like that, but it’s very important.

  20. He wasn’t a Native American he was a RED (Indian).

  21. Deleted but archived: http://archive.fo/v0dBT

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    They do need put in re-education camps. Then they wouldn't allow the importation of their enemies
    , @Mr. Anon

    This brain surgeon wants to put your kids in camps. pic.twitter.com/uTYYZo9mu8
     
    This Indian woman thinks that Catholic high school boys are all gang rapists.

    You know where you can find a lot of gang rapists? India!

    Google "gang rape in India" - over 45 million hits - lots of recent stories, hot off the presses.
    , @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    "Scary faces"

    Dear God.
  22. @Buffalo Joe
    Tiny, You just plagiarzed that comment. Have you no shame, I ask with a smirk on my face. You , however, probably have a Smurf on your face.

    I’d proudly stand with Native American and U.S. Military Veteran Nathan Phillips rather than bend over for the Red Hat #MAGAt traitors who abet Putin’s debasement of America.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910

    I’d proudly stand with Native American and U.S. Military Veteran Nathan Phillips rather than bend over for the Red Hat #MAGAt traitors who abet Putin’s debasement of America.

     

    https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/1086829516960514048

    Smirk: @Tiny Duck.
  23. But as a practical matter, the other side will be functionally Open Borders as long as Trump is President.

    As opposed to before Trump was President?

  24. Who can turn the world on with his smirk?
    Who can take a nothing day, and suddenly make you a big jerk?
    Well it’s you boy, and you should know it
    With each glance and every little movement you show it

    Hate is all around, no need to waste it
    You can never tell, why don’t you fake it
    You’re gonna make it after all
    You’re gonna make it after all

    • Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster
    Love it! Keep them coming.
    , @riches

    🎵You’re gonna make it after all
    You’re gonna make it after all🎵
     
    At which he tosses his MAGA cap high in the air?
  25. @gregor
    https://twitter.com/dasjudge/status/1086901083363045382

    The demand for White BoogieMen, and other Villains from Media Narratives is far in excess of supply.
    Perhaps it’s time for the SPLC & ADL to swing into action with their million$ and start hiring actors and agents provocateurs to fill this demand. No doubt they’ve done it before.
    If the supply won’t meet the demand, a lot of these agitated Leftists are going to have nervous breakdowns this year.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I can’t help wondering if the SPLC and ADL might have David Duke on the payroll. Seriously, where would they be without him? He’s been worth tens of millions to those organizations, maybe hundreds of millions.
  26. Anon[183] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve always said the way to shut up the leftwing media was to sue them into oblivion for their lies and slander. They’re getting more reckless and desperate and making mistakes, which leaves them open to counterattack. Supposedly this affair is going to be lawsuit city.

    They’re really going to be wetting their pants if Ginsburg dies. The Santa Monica Observer says she has pneumonia.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't wish death on her, but......she needs to be off the Supreme Court and she is not going to retire, I just hope Trump puts a solid peckerwood white Protestant male in there to replace her.
  27. Anon[210] • Disclaimer says:

    This is an adult woman, about 35 years old, judging from LinkedIn. I checked because it sounded so much like an early 20s guy, or maybe an MtF.

    She’s a shrill feminist. In fact, she wrote a book decrying sexism against shrill feminists. Her general vibe is that of a survivor of a violent crime.

  28. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/dogbot5/status/1087180593824256001

    Deleted but archived: http://archive.fo/v0dBT

    They do need put in re-education camps. Then they wouldn’t allow the importation of their enemies

  29. @anon1
    We can devastate you with a smirk? Man you people are weak.

    That is an odd admission, isn’t it?

  30. You can understand that the situation was more complex than the first video and still recognize why the sight of that face caused a visceral reaction in so many.

    Strumming my pain with his privilege,
    Mansplaining my life with his words,
    Killing me softly with his smirk,
    Killing me softly with his smirk,
    Mansplaining my whole life with his words,
    Killing me softly with his smirk.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    If you can't live in an industrial society, then just about everything looks like a source of pain. We've all had chronic pain at one time or another -- remember being extremely irritable for no reason, and sometimes inventing reasons?

    Counterinsurgency
  31. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/dogbot5/status/1087180593824256001

    Deleted but archived: http://archive.fo/v0dBT

    This brain surgeon wants to put your kids in camps. pic.twitter.com/uTYYZo9mu8

    This Indian woman thinks that Catholic high school boys are all gang rapists.

    You know where you can find a lot of gang rapists? India!

    Google “gang rape in India” – over 45 million hits – lots of recent stories, hot off the presses.

    • Replies: @Gordo

    You know where you can find a lot of gang rapists? India!
     
    Import Indian DNA, import Indian behaviour.
  32. @Anon
    I've always said the way to shut up the leftwing media was to sue them into oblivion for their lies and slander. They're getting more reckless and desperate and making mistakes, which leaves them open to counterattack. Supposedly this affair is going to be lawsuit city.

    They're really going to be wetting their pants if Ginsburg dies. The Santa Monica Observer says she has pneumonia.

    I don’t wish death on her, but……she needs to be off the Supreme Court and she is not going to retire, I just hope Trump puts a solid peckerwood white Protestant male in there to replace her.

  33. How can these clean-living, high school villains redeem themselves?

    Maybe they can volunteer as blood boys for Bill Clinton and George Soros. The least they could do is offer Nathan Phillips a lifetime supply of firewater.

  34. @Tiny Duck.
    I’d proudly stand with Native American and U.S. Military Veteran Nathan Phillips rather than bend over for the Red Hat #MAGAt traitors who abet Putin’s debasement of America.

    I’d proudly stand with Native American and U.S. Military Veteran Nathan Phillips rather than bend over for the Red Hat #MAGAt traitors who abet Putin’s debasement of America.

    Smirk:

    • Replies: @Hail

    • Smirk: @Tiny Duck.
     
    What the heck? A new opinion button available only to Tiny Duck v2.0?
  35. @Johnny789
    Who can turn the world on with his smirk?
    Who can take a nothing day, and suddenly make you a big jerk?
    Well it's you boy, and you should know it
    With each glance and every little movement you show it

    Hate is all around, no need to waste it
    You can never tell, why don't you fake it
    You're gonna make it after all
    You're gonna make it after all

    Love it! Keep them coming.

  36. @Wilkey
    Today I'm going to libel an entire "overwhelmingly blond" UVa frat house based on some bullshit story about some young men who raped a girl on a floor covered in broken glass.

    Then I'm going to accuse a Supreme Court nominee of attempted rape over 30 years ago and grow indignant when you ask why I never mentioned it earlier and have no evidence to back me up.

    Then I'm going to tell you that some white teenager deserves to be demonized from sea to shining sea, because I don't like his white face.

    Then I'm going to dance on the graves of a bunch of recently deceased elderly white Britons, World War 2 vets included, and celebrate their deaths because it supposedly means that a majority of Britons are now opposed Brexit.

    Then I'm going to remind you that Republicans are never going to win an election again because we are busy race-replacing you with millions of brown illegals.

    Because I'm a modern Leftist, and that's what I do.

    All that is happening, but it is not leftism.

    One fine day, when it’s too late (tomorrow would be a good day) you will understand that misidentifiying the problem actually hinders finding a solution to the problem.

    Rule of thumb: the ruling class is not leftist. Therefore, if the ruling class wants something, there should be a strong suspicion that it’s not a leftist goal.

  37. @Boethiuss

    There needs to be regulation of the media and colleges. Anyone making a big deal out of these problems without advocating for solutions is just bullshitting and distracting you (e.g Trump).
     
    Absolutely there does. But we're not going to get it while Trump is still President or de facto leader of the GOP.

    We might even "win" this little skirmish based on a significant number of people who have been redpilled as a consequence. The problem is, people can still be redpilled and still oppose Donald Trump, and that's what we have now.

    You can see it in some of Steve's recent complaints against Open Borders. The other side likes to say, "We're not necessarily in favor of Open Borders, but....", we oppose the wall, we favor DACA, etc, etc. And on that score, they're probably right, they're not. There are some Open Borders people around, and as much as anything they're likely to be weak-Right libertarians.

    But as a practical matter, the other side will be functionally Open Borders as long as Trump is President. Anything that restricts immigration is going to be perceived as a political win for President Trump, and they want Trump to lose, above whatever policies are in play and their consequences.

    President Trump is a polarizing figure. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, Reagan was polarizing too. The problem is that, whereas Reagan polarized us into a majority and them into a minority, Trump is the other way around. We are a minority and they are a majority and nothing meaningfully good is going to happen for us until that is resolved.

    And perhaps the resolution won’t be good.

    The other side has been functionallly Open Boarders since c.a. AD 1965. Onc could make a case that they have been Open Borders since c.a. AD 1845, despite anti-immigration riots that make antifa look like pacifists. During almost all of that interval they have sworn that they were closed borders. Trump caused this current fight only in the sense that he declined to participate in a massacre from the receiving end.

    You can always stop somebody from murdering you if you commit suicide quickly enough. Failure to commit suicide doesn’t make you responsible for your own murder, nor does is exculpate the actual murderer. The population of Cambodia was not responsible for the genocide there, the Khmer Rouge were.

    Counterinsurgency

  38. @Mr. Anon

    You can understand that the situation was more complex than the first video and still recognize why the sight of that face caused a visceral reaction in so many.
     
    Strumming my pain with his privilege,
    Mansplaining my life with his words,
    Killing me softly with his smirk,
    Killing me softly with his smirk,
    Mansplaining my whole life with his words,
    Killing me softly with his smirk.

    If you can’t live in an industrial society, then just about everything looks like a source of pain. We’ve all had chronic pain at one time or another — remember being extremely irritable for no reason, and sometimes inventing reasons?

    Counterinsurgency

  39. @Mr. Anon

    This brain surgeon wants to put your kids in camps. pic.twitter.com/uTYYZo9mu8
     
    This Indian woman thinks that Catholic high school boys are all gang rapists.

    You know where you can find a lot of gang rapists? India!

    Google "gang rape in India" - over 45 million hits - lots of recent stories, hot off the presses.

    You know where you can find a lot of gang rapists? India!

    Import Indian DNA, import Indian behaviour.

  40. @Tiny Duck.
    From elementary school through college I went to school with sheltered upper middle class white boys who could DEVASTATE with a smirk. A facial guesture that weaponized their privilege. Infuriatingly you can’t fight that fucking smirk with a punch or words.

    Tiny Duck is a great example. He can’t live in industrialized society, and doesn’t know why. He hates it. Things that I put up with, without even noticing, he finds intolerable because they are _one more thing_ that shows he can’t live in the industrial society that surrounds him. That’s a good part of the motive for the Combat, Glory, and the Loot of Empire (CG&L0E) program he’s advocating (or perhaps threatening).

    Readers might look at Somerset Maugham’s ‘The Alien Corn” for a talented author’s depiction of this general situation.

    Tiny, I wish I had a good solution for this. If I did, I’d be applying it to myself. I don’t.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/alexhcranz/status/1086717790558609408

    Tiny Duck is a serial plagiarist.

    https://cdn.lolwot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/10-hilarious-cereal-brand-knock-offs-3.jpg
  41. As a political guy, incidents like these have more impact on the electorate than policy debates. I wonder how many white suburban moms that voted Dem this past election to send Trump a message watch this and think they made a mistake? Empowering the very people that will not hestitate to take out your kids because of a smirk doesn’t seem wise.

    A number of Democrat politicians, including Elizabeth Warren, rushed out denunciations of these boys. None have retracted.

    • Replies: @IHTG
    Liberal white suburban moms everywhere: "They ain't talking about me!"
  42. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andy
    Why someone whose family name is Petersen hates whites so much? The self-hatred by a good portion of white people needs some explaining (yeah, I know this is in part projecting moral superiority over other whites, but this cannot be the whole answer, since this doesn't happen in other races)

    we seem to be evolving to organize around ideal instead of genes and jews realizing this take advantage of the situation and we because ideals cant stop it. cuckservatives to some extent recognize our peril but actually think it better our people culture nations die than we betray our ideals. its like the capitalist thing sure capitalism’s great because it serves us so well but cucks think its great even when it doesn’t. seems we are repurposing the religious instinct genes and as we did with religion ( and how this ball got rolling) intellectualizing how many angels can dance which gives it the emotional impetus and accessible to the cognitively deficient, low church high church. so its tribalism in a deeper sense because all religion is tribalism, our tribalisms inverted.and for elites in a sense its not as inverted its a synthetic tribe of elites but the whites know deep down the others dont really qualify and the muds also know theyre on AA but status is maybe more primal than tribe.
    the only way you break this is going deeper still fairness is deep but its hard to make te case when they hold the mic which is why they are fighting us off the mic, they understand they have reached the point of such absurdity the satire will devastate them almost instantly if they allow it because even the cog challenged can get the cog dissonance at this stage. if we cant get the mic we have to wait or bring on the fight or flight instinct that can take longer than one thinks freezing seems plausible for a long time

  43. @Ed
    As a political guy, incidents like these have more impact on the electorate than policy debates. I wonder how many white suburban moms that voted Dem this past election to send Trump a message watch this and think they made a mistake? Empowering the very people that will not hestitate to take out your kids because of a smirk doesn’t seem wise.

    A number of Democrat politicians, including Elizabeth Warren, rushed out denunciations of these boys. None have retracted.

    Liberal white suburban moms everywhere: “They ain’t talking about me!”

  44. @Johnny789
    Who can turn the world on with his smirk?
    Who can take a nothing day, and suddenly make you a big jerk?
    Well it's you boy, and you should know it
    With each glance and every little movement you show it

    Hate is all around, no need to waste it
    You can never tell, why don't you fake it
    You're gonna make it after all
    You're gonna make it after all

    🎵You’re gonna make it after all
    You’re gonna make it after all🎵

    At which he tosses his MAGA cap high in the air?

  45. @Counterinsurgency
    Tiny Duck is a great example. He can't live in industrialized society, and doesn't know why. He hates it. Things that I put up with, without even noticing, he finds intolerable because they are _one more thing_ that shows he can't live in the industrial society that surrounds him. That's a good part of the motive for the Combat, Glory, and the Loot of Empire (CG&L0E) program he's advocating (or perhaps threatening).

    Readers might look at Somerset Maugham’s ‘The Alien Corn" for a talented author's depiction of this general situation.

    Tiny, I wish I had a good solution for this. If I did, I'd be applying it to myself. I don't.

    Counterinsurgency

    Tiny Duck is a serial plagiarist.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    Tiny Duck is a serial plagiarist.
     
    That's consistent with my assertions. Hatred and contempt quite often go together. He's throwing everything he can get his hands on, harder now that he thinks there's a chance the CG&LoE might actually happen.

    Counterinsurgency
  46. @Cagey Beast
    Both the media and academia need to be splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds. They cannot be regulated.

    That’s a form of regulation dumb dumb.

  47. @Boethiuss

    There needs to be regulation of the media and colleges. Anyone making a big deal out of these problems without advocating for solutions is just bullshitting and distracting you (e.g Trump).
     
    Absolutely there does. But we're not going to get it while Trump is still President or de facto leader of the GOP.

    We might even "win" this little skirmish based on a significant number of people who have been redpilled as a consequence. The problem is, people can still be redpilled and still oppose Donald Trump, and that's what we have now.

    You can see it in some of Steve's recent complaints against Open Borders. The other side likes to say, "We're not necessarily in favor of Open Borders, but....", we oppose the wall, we favor DACA, etc, etc. And on that score, they're probably right, they're not. There are some Open Borders people around, and as much as anything they're likely to be weak-Right libertarians.

    But as a practical matter, the other side will be functionally Open Borders as long as Trump is President. Anything that restricts immigration is going to be perceived as a political win for President Trump, and they want Trump to lose, above whatever policies are in play and their consequences.

    President Trump is a polarizing figure. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, Reagan was polarizing too. The problem is that, whereas Reagan polarized us into a majority and them into a minority, Trump is the other way around. We are a minority and they are a majority and nothing meaningfully good is going to happen for us until that is resolved.

    Yes, Trump giving people lots of rational reasons to be angry at him and then inspiring many more irrational ones is a weakness, not a strength no matter how emotionally satisfying it is for his supporters. He should of gotten off twitter and become presidential when he wrapped up the GOP nomination, when he first said he would.

    My point was that people joining in on the two minutes of hate against the media to counter their two minutes are making the same mistake, confusing something being emotionally satisfying with it being rational.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    Rational doesn't always win, not even in argument [1,2].
    The rational reasons groups are unhappy with Trump trace back to perceived threats to the group's dominance. But there the preference for their own group's dominance is not rational. Rationally, there is no reason to, say, continue breathing. We do so for the same reason trees photosynthesize: we have no choice. For a practical demonstration (to be attempted only if you are in very good or better health), try holding your breath as long as you can. You will eventually start breathing again.

    That is why emotions are essential for human decision making [3]. I've done significant work in operations research, and I can say that OR optimization techniques are not generally applicable. They work, sometimes poorly, only in very restricted systems. Even there, one can get emergent properties or real properties left behind by leaky abstrations, that make optimization rules distinctly sub-optimal. The old 1950's Davy Crocket "Be sure you're right, then go ahead" rule is about as good as you're going to get in unstructured situations. Crocket's rule assumes emotions and limited time to make a decision, which is, after all, the usual case for humans and most of the vertebrates.

    So there is a place, and essential place, for emotions.

    Rationality? Important mainly in avoiding bad consequences. Like AI, it has its limits _but no built in warnings that you've exceeded its limits_. If you have a bike with a flat tire, and ask a medical AI what drugs to use, the AI will do its best to find a drug to treat flat tires. The responsibility for realizing that the AI doesn't work on bicycles is yours.

    Example: Astrology has performed miracles of accurate prediction. Without astrology, people would not have known when to plant crops. Astrology literally kept the world fed, and still does. It also saved lives by predicting the onset of cold weather, of floods, of the Monsoons, etc. Obviously a triumph or rationalism. _However_, its extension into politics didn't work all that well, nor did the personal horoscopes still being published. All rational systems are like that: they work until they don't.

    Note: There is a fairly strong counter-argument by Wigner [4], and the issue is far from settled. It's a case of "(P1) Just hold on for tonight, and prepare to evacuate if needed. Tomorrow the fleet comes in!" (P2) "If the fleet is coming in, why prerpare to evacuate?" (P1) Because I don't whose which fleet!"

    The rule of thumb for practitioners should, for the time being and in my opinion, as I've stated. Maybe the Philospher's Stone will someday turn all rationality to gold, but to date the Pilosopeher's Stone is not available.

    Counterinsurgency



    1] Lewis Carrrol.
    "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles"
    http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html
    2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles
    3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_decision-making
  48. @Andy
    Why someone whose family name is Petersen hates whites so much? The self-hatred by a good portion of white people needs some explaining (yeah, I know this is in part projecting moral superiority over other whites, but this cannot be the whole answer, since this doesn't happen in other races)

    The fewer whites around, the more special her attention-seeking self becomes.

  49. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/dogbot5/status/1087180593824256001

    Deleted but archived: http://archive.fo/v0dBT

    “Scary faces”

    Dear God.

  50. @BenKenobi
    Modest proposal:

    Mr. Unz subtracts all TD-posts and replies to same from Steve's yearly comment count.

    Please, please, at least do that. Best would be to bloc Tiny Duck in all his iterations, second best would be for people to stop responding to him, but apparently they can’t control themselves.

  51. @MEH 0910

    I’d proudly stand with Native American and U.S. Military Veteran Nathan Phillips rather than bend over for the Red Hat #MAGAt traitors who abet Putin’s debasement of America.

     

    https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/1086829516960514048

    Smirk: @Tiny Duck.

    • Smirk:

    What the heck? A new opinion button available only to Tiny Duck v2.0?

    • Replies: @Jackmaninov
    At long last, proof that Tiny Duck is Unz.
    , @MEH 0910
    No, that's just me messing around. I typed it in manually with my comment.

    WTF: @Tiny Duck.

  52. @CrunchybutRealistCon
    The demand for White BoogieMen, and other Villains from Media Narratives is far in excess of supply.
    Perhaps it's time for the SPLC & ADL to swing into action with their million$ and start hiring actors and agents provocateurs to fill this demand. No doubt they've done it before.
    If the supply won't meet the demand, a lot of these agitated Leftists are going to have nervous breakdowns this year.

    I can’t help wondering if the SPLC and ADL might have David Duke on the payroll. Seriously, where would they be without him? He’s been worth tens of millions to those organizations, maybe hundreds of millions.

  53. @Tiny Duck.
    From elementary school through college I went to school with sheltered upper middle class white boys who could DEVASTATE with a smirk. A facial guesture that weaponized their privilege. Infuriatingly you can’t fight that fucking smirk with a punch or words.

    You never went near any upper middle class people of any race.

  54. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    If the parents sue I hope they include the high school the catholic bishops of KY and every single catholic anti abortion group in the country.

    They sent White male catholic minors 500 miles to the most anti White anti Christian anti catholic anti male city in the country with a 47% black population with no adults to protect them.

    Didn’t those clueless priests note the vicious anti catholic boys school hatred expressed during the Kavanaugh hearings?

    I suppose the anti abortion match was supposed to counteract the pro abortion women’s march.

  55. @Hail

    • Smirk: @Tiny Duck.
     
    What the heck? A new opinion button available only to Tiny Duck v2.0?

    At long last, proof that Tiny Duck is Unz.

  56. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/alexhcranz/status/1086717790558609408

    Tiny Duck is a serial plagiarist.

    https://cdn.lolwot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/10-hilarious-cereal-brand-knock-offs-3.jpg

    Tiny Duck is a serial plagiarist.

    That’s consistent with my assertions. Hatred and contempt quite often go together. He’s throwing everything he can get his hands on, harder now that he thinks there’s a chance the CG&LoE might actually happen.

    Counterinsurgency

  57. @Guy De Champlagne
    Yes, Trump giving people lots of rational reasons to be angry at him and then inspiring many more irrational ones is a weakness, not a strength no matter how emotionally satisfying it is for his supporters. He should of gotten off twitter and become presidential when he wrapped up the GOP nomination, when he first said he would.

    My point was that people joining in on the two minutes of hate against the media to counter their two minutes are making the same mistake, confusing something being emotionally satisfying with it being rational.

    Rational doesn’t always win, not even in argument [1,2].
    The rational reasons groups are unhappy with Trump trace back to perceived threats to the group’s dominance. But there the preference for their own group’s dominance is not rational. Rationally, there is no reason to, say, continue breathing. We do so for the same reason trees photosynthesize: we have no choice. For a practical demonstration (to be attempted only if you are in very good or better health), try holding your breath as long as you can. You will eventually start breathing again.

    That is why emotions are essential for human decision making [3]. I’ve done significant work in operations research, and I can say that OR optimization techniques are not generally applicable. They work, sometimes poorly, only in very restricted systems. Even there, one can get emergent properties or real properties left behind by leaky abstrations, that make optimization rules distinctly sub-optimal. The old 1950’s Davy Crocket “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead” rule is about as good as you’re going to get in unstructured situations. Crocket’s rule assumes emotions and limited time to make a decision, which is, after all, the usual case for humans and most of the vertebrates.

    So there is a place, and essential place, for emotions.

    Rationality? Important mainly in avoiding bad consequences. Like AI, it has its limits _but no built in warnings that you’ve exceeded its limits_. If you have a bike with a flat tire, and ask a medical AI what drugs to use, the AI will do its best to find a drug to treat flat tires. The responsibility for realizing that the AI doesn’t work on bicycles is yours.

    Example: Astrology has performed miracles of accurate prediction. Without astrology, people would not have known when to plant crops. Astrology literally kept the world fed, and still does. It also saved lives by predicting the onset of cold weather, of floods, of the Monsoons, etc. Obviously a triumph or rationalism. _However_, its extension into politics didn’t work all that well, nor did the personal horoscopes still being published. All rational systems are like that: they work until they don’t.

    Note: There is a fairly strong counter-argument by Wigner [4], and the issue is far from settled. It’s a case of “(P1) Just hold on for tonight, and prepare to evacuate if needed. Tomorrow the fleet comes in!” (P2) “If the fleet is coming in, why prerpare to evacuate?” (P1) Because I don’t whose which fleet!”

    The rule of thumb for practitioners should, for the time being and in my opinion, as I’ve stated. Maybe the Philospher’s Stone will someday turn all rationality to gold, but to date the Pilosopeher’s Stone is not available.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Lewis Carrrol.
    “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles”
    http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html
    2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles
    3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_decision-making

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    How are you defining "rationality"?
    , @Romanian
    You have consistently interesting posts. Kudos!
  58. @Counterinsurgency
    Rational doesn't always win, not even in argument [1,2].
    The rational reasons groups are unhappy with Trump trace back to perceived threats to the group's dominance. But there the preference for their own group's dominance is not rational. Rationally, there is no reason to, say, continue breathing. We do so for the same reason trees photosynthesize: we have no choice. For a practical demonstration (to be attempted only if you are in very good or better health), try holding your breath as long as you can. You will eventually start breathing again.

    That is why emotions are essential for human decision making [3]. I've done significant work in operations research, and I can say that OR optimization techniques are not generally applicable. They work, sometimes poorly, only in very restricted systems. Even there, one can get emergent properties or real properties left behind by leaky abstrations, that make optimization rules distinctly sub-optimal. The old 1950's Davy Crocket "Be sure you're right, then go ahead" rule is about as good as you're going to get in unstructured situations. Crocket's rule assumes emotions and limited time to make a decision, which is, after all, the usual case for humans and most of the vertebrates.

    So there is a place, and essential place, for emotions.

    Rationality? Important mainly in avoiding bad consequences. Like AI, it has its limits _but no built in warnings that you've exceeded its limits_. If you have a bike with a flat tire, and ask a medical AI what drugs to use, the AI will do its best to find a drug to treat flat tires. The responsibility for realizing that the AI doesn't work on bicycles is yours.

    Example: Astrology has performed miracles of accurate prediction. Without astrology, people would not have known when to plant crops. Astrology literally kept the world fed, and still does. It also saved lives by predicting the onset of cold weather, of floods, of the Monsoons, etc. Obviously a triumph or rationalism. _However_, its extension into politics didn't work all that well, nor did the personal horoscopes still being published. All rational systems are like that: they work until they don't.

    Note: There is a fairly strong counter-argument by Wigner [4], and the issue is far from settled. It's a case of "(P1) Just hold on for tonight, and prepare to evacuate if needed. Tomorrow the fleet comes in!" (P2) "If the fleet is coming in, why prerpare to evacuate?" (P1) Because I don't whose which fleet!"

    The rule of thumb for practitioners should, for the time being and in my opinion, as I've stated. Maybe the Philospher's Stone will someday turn all rationality to gold, but to date the Pilosopeher's Stone is not available.

    Counterinsurgency



    1] Lewis Carrrol.
    "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles"
    http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html
    2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles
    3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_decision-making

    How are you defining “rationality”?

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    I'll stick with the definition in _Oxford Living Dictionary_[1]. It's as follows:

    1The quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
    ‘like any phobia, rationality plays only a small role’

    1.1 The quality of being able to think sensibly or logically.
    ‘Scott wanted to play the character with a bit more dignity and rationality’
    1.2 The quality of being endowed with the capacity to reason.
    ‘we call rationality the distinction of man, when compared with other animals’


    The word has quite a few definitions, including at least one circular definition. This definition is in terms of logic (or reason, which is sort of a circular definition). My point was that logic is insufficient absent emotion. I believe that my citations established that insufficiency, or at least that the insufficiency is widely accepted.

    Back around AD 1900 there was a serious and sustained effort to establish the "foundations" of mathematics, something one could definitely tie to reality. It didn't work, and ended up showing that mathematics can't even prove all theorems that are true in terms of its own postulates and rules of transformation [2].

    Counterinsurgency

    1] entry for the word "reason".
    _Oxford Living Dictionary_, accessed 2018/01/22.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rationality

    2] Hofstadter
    _Godel, Escher, Bach_
    Basic Books, originally published 1979.
    This is a good popular introduction to the problem, and at least leaves you with the illusion that you understand it. That's as of 40 years ago, of course.
  59. @Anonymous
    How are you defining "rationality"?

    I’ll stick with the definition in _Oxford Living Dictionary_[1]. It’s as follows:

    1The quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
    ‘like any phobia, rationality plays only a small role’

    1.1 The quality of being able to think sensibly or logically.
    ‘Scott wanted to play the character with a bit more dignity and rationality’
    1.2 The quality of being endowed with the capacity to reason.
    ‘we call rationality the distinction of man, when compared with other animals’

    The word has quite a few definitions, including at least one circular definition. This definition is in terms of logic (or reason, which is sort of a circular definition). My point was that logic is insufficient absent emotion. I believe that my citations established that insufficiency, or at least that the insufficiency is widely accepted.

    Back around AD 1900 there was a serious and sustained effort to establish the “foundations” of mathematics, something one could definitely tie to reality. It didn’t work, and ended up showing that mathematics can’t even prove all theorems that are true in terms of its own postulates and rules of transformation [2].

    Counterinsurgency

    1] entry for the word “reason”.
    _Oxford Living Dictionary_, accessed 2018/01/22.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rationality

    2] Hofstadter
    _Godel, Escher, Bach_
    Basic Books, originally published 1979.
    This is a good popular introduction to the problem, and at least leaves you with the illusion that you understand it. That’s as of 40 years ago, of course.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thank you.

    I'd think the circular definitions there would include "reason" and "thinking sensibly".

    But what proves that thinking reasonably or sensibly or even logically cannot be done absent emotion?

  60. @Counterinsurgency
    I'll stick with the definition in _Oxford Living Dictionary_[1]. It's as follows:

    1The quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
    ‘like any phobia, rationality plays only a small role’

    1.1 The quality of being able to think sensibly or logically.
    ‘Scott wanted to play the character with a bit more dignity and rationality’
    1.2 The quality of being endowed with the capacity to reason.
    ‘we call rationality the distinction of man, when compared with other animals’


    The word has quite a few definitions, including at least one circular definition. This definition is in terms of logic (or reason, which is sort of a circular definition). My point was that logic is insufficient absent emotion. I believe that my citations established that insufficiency, or at least that the insufficiency is widely accepted.

    Back around AD 1900 there was a serious and sustained effort to establish the "foundations" of mathematics, something one could definitely tie to reality. It didn't work, and ended up showing that mathematics can't even prove all theorems that are true in terms of its own postulates and rules of transformation [2].

    Counterinsurgency

    1] entry for the word "reason".
    _Oxford Living Dictionary_, accessed 2018/01/22.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rationality

    2] Hofstadter
    _Godel, Escher, Bach_
    Basic Books, originally published 1979.
    This is a good popular introduction to the problem, and at least leaves you with the illusion that you understand it. That's as of 40 years ago, of course.

    Thank you.

    I’d think the circular definitions there would include “reason” and “thinking sensibly”.

    But what proves that thinking reasonably or sensibly or even logically cannot be done absent emotion?

  61. @Hail

    • Smirk: @Tiny Duck.
     
    What the heck? A new opinion button available only to Tiny Duck v2.0?

    No, that’s just me messing around. I typed it in manually with my comment.

    WTF:

    • Replies: @Hail

    • WTF: @Tiny Duck.
     
    Tiny Duck[period] says:

    "Stop Reverse Trolling me!"

    • Unqualified and Absolute Endorsement: @Tiny Duck.
  62. what proves that thinking reasonably or sensibly or even logically cannot be done absent emotion?

    I did a bit of literature research and it looks like things are now a bit more complicated than the last time I looked at this.
    a) Holistic views of human behavior seem to agree that emotion is necessary for decision making. No emotion means endless delay; people and lab animals with brain lesions that reduce emotion don’t know when to quite analyzing and start acting [1]. Emotionless people seem to think reasonable or sensibly or logically, but don’t seem to know when to stop thinking and actually do something. In warm and fuzzy talk, logic has no values, and so values nothing.
    b) Reductionist views of human behavior seem to say that decision making is a whole brain activity, and that it involves so many brain centers in such a complex way that reaching any decision at all is a minor miracle [2]. I think that recent advances in MRI use to observe live brain function has left researchers with enough data to show that their previous beliefs were wrong, but not enough time and technique to figure out what is right.

    That’s about all I can really say. I’d guess that there are some actual researchers in this field who follow Unz.com. I’d appreciate their participation in discussing this topic.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://www.thecut.com/2016/06/how-only-using-logic-destroyed-a-man.html
    2] https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/3/295/449599

  63. @Counterinsurgency
    Rational doesn't always win, not even in argument [1,2].
    The rational reasons groups are unhappy with Trump trace back to perceived threats to the group's dominance. But there the preference for their own group's dominance is not rational. Rationally, there is no reason to, say, continue breathing. We do so for the same reason trees photosynthesize: we have no choice. For a practical demonstration (to be attempted only if you are in very good or better health), try holding your breath as long as you can. You will eventually start breathing again.

    That is why emotions are essential for human decision making [3]. I've done significant work in operations research, and I can say that OR optimization techniques are not generally applicable. They work, sometimes poorly, only in very restricted systems. Even there, one can get emergent properties or real properties left behind by leaky abstrations, that make optimization rules distinctly sub-optimal. The old 1950's Davy Crocket "Be sure you're right, then go ahead" rule is about as good as you're going to get in unstructured situations. Crocket's rule assumes emotions and limited time to make a decision, which is, after all, the usual case for humans and most of the vertebrates.

    So there is a place, and essential place, for emotions.

    Rationality? Important mainly in avoiding bad consequences. Like AI, it has its limits _but no built in warnings that you've exceeded its limits_. If you have a bike with a flat tire, and ask a medical AI what drugs to use, the AI will do its best to find a drug to treat flat tires. The responsibility for realizing that the AI doesn't work on bicycles is yours.

    Example: Astrology has performed miracles of accurate prediction. Without astrology, people would not have known when to plant crops. Astrology literally kept the world fed, and still does. It also saved lives by predicting the onset of cold weather, of floods, of the Monsoons, etc. Obviously a triumph or rationalism. _However_, its extension into politics didn't work all that well, nor did the personal horoscopes still being published. All rational systems are like that: they work until they don't.

    Note: There is a fairly strong counter-argument by Wigner [4], and the issue is far from settled. It's a case of "(P1) Just hold on for tonight, and prepare to evacuate if needed. Tomorrow the fleet comes in!" (P2) "If the fleet is coming in, why prerpare to evacuate?" (P1) Because I don't whose which fleet!"

    The rule of thumb for practitioners should, for the time being and in my opinion, as I've stated. Maybe the Philospher's Stone will someday turn all rationality to gold, but to date the Pilosopeher's Stone is not available.

    Counterinsurgency



    1] Lewis Carrrol.
    "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles"
    http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html
    2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles
    3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_decision-making

    You have consistently interesting posts. Kudos!

  64. @MEH 0910
    No, that's just me messing around. I typed it in manually with my comment.

    WTF: @Tiny Duck.

    • WTF:

    Tiny Duck[period] says:

    “Stop Reverse Trolling me!”

    • Unqualified and Absolute Endorsement:

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution