houseoftolstoy @[email protected]
Looks like this will be my new home. Warning: I (probably) have Asperger's, so my be prepared for my autism to show through.
I don't think I am a right wing extremist, but I am sure anyone with low testosterone might think otherwise.
Joined Sep 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2QGME8KHzY
Watching this video of out curiosity and to confirm if this guy matches the expectation of the Smuggie here. Pretty much.
But I had the moment of "are you freaking kidding me" was that he stated at around the 30:20 minute mark when he said "she was the only one in the argument actually offering statistics rather than emotion."
The "statistics?" That 1/3 women in the US get raped.
Offering statistics means nothing when your statistics are bullshit.
@Aether Sometimes you are able to win the competition because you are the only one that showed up. That just shows how important it is to show up when others are not even motivated to compete.
But it can also make you complacent and not truly doing the best you can do. Because if it is easy for you to be 1st place, you might not be able to reach your true potential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q153tEib-js
Seeing this video made me think about something regarding right-left politics. It was inevitable that the left would push young men out, because their ideaology of equality is antithetical to how men operate. Men are naturally competitve, and seek to compete to determine where they stand. If left to compete in all areas, men would be dominant in pretty much all areas.
Thus men are shoved down in order to try (and fail) at reaching the ideal of equality.
@shortstories The attacks on Fox News shows the left's playbook is highly outdated, as all cable news is less relevant with their core demographics literally dying out and an increased availability with many alternate sources with the internet.
I also remember how Fox News made it pretty clear they were false opposition during the 2020 election. So Fox News dying would not make me shed one tear.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
@graf Borders are completely artificial lines and only humans care about them...
houseoftolstoy
boosted
this is an image of GPS tracking of multiple wolves in six different packs around Voyageurs National Park
Even if we believe the data on inflation (we shouldn't), looking at the past 12 months is disingenuous because we cannot just look at economics and prices in an isolated window and proclaim that everything is sunshine and roses. We have to account for the previous years of inflation and economic conditions, which would show that those rising wages still do not offset the previous effects of inflation.
But I don't think the typical NPR listener will consider that one bit.
Even if the plan was to install Trump in office, the shitlib media will most certainly still do their best to run interference.
Example: on state media NPR they mentioned that "pessimism for the economy does not match the numbers" because "wages have increased more than inflation over the last 12 months."
Yes, they want their audience to think the economy is great with this completely retarded line of reasoning. There is no amount of hate for the media that is too much.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
houseoftolstoy
boosted
we can't use common sense to predict the bad outcomes of this pursuit, we must waste trillions of dollars, millions of tons of materials and uncountable man hours on it to see what happens. maybe it'll just magically work out
I have to wonder if these people like this buy waste basket bags for their smaller garbage bins. Because if you are on the "I can't use a plastic bag" because of "muh environment" but still buy plastic bags anyway, then you are not even doing your part by your standard.
Besides, grocery store plastic bags tend to have handles on them, which makes it real easy to tie your garbage when the bin is full.
But no, we have to virtue signal that we are "doing my part."
houseoftolstoy
boosted
hurr durr I lucked my way into a stable relationship so now it's cool for me to be a fucking asshole about it to my single "brothers"
I have seen plenty of libshits (such as on NPR) come out against tariffs because "it will increase the cost of goods!" Yes, they are correct. That is what taxes do.
But I also notice none of these faggots ever object to every other tax that also raises the price of goods. Because it only matters that they oppose tariffs because Trump is pushing for them.
I may not be in favor of tariffs, but I despise the disingenuous opposition I am seeing to them.
@deprecated_ii Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on this being a real problem on account that their ancestors came from a place that gets way more sun and heat than anywhere in the US.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Expanding an idea out of morality into how fact claims work (I should probably just write a book):
I've had to stress something many times that I'm not sure there's a general term for. "Knowing that..." beats "Knowing how..."
Simply knowing that something happens turns out to be much more useful than knowing how. Heuristics beat causal chains.
Knowing "that" some drug reduces heart attacks is the important thing--knowing "how" isn't necessary for it to work, or even to make it. In fact, most drugs don't have known paths of effect to begin with; we just know that taking X is associated with Y happening, and that's useful enough.
A spider has no idea why it builds webs. They just make them, and food spontaneously appears. You can benefit from facts without understanding how they work--that's actually just about everything we do.
We were domesticating plants and animals millennia before learning what genes were; we didn't need to know every microscopic process to benefit from heredity, and we still don't know them to this day, yet breeding works just fine.
Knowing that leeches react to incoming storms let us build the tempest prognosticator. How's it work? Nobody knows! But it sure can predict storms real good. Turns out that's the important thing.
Say a guy with only "that"-type knowledge, gathered from the top down, makes a simple pencil and paper algorithm that's right 90% of the time... Is his method more or less useful than a dweeb running bottom-up "how" calculations on a supercomputer, who tries in vain to simulate the motion of every atom to predict the behavior of a larger system, and is correct no more often than chance? It should be obvious who to put your money on, yet when arguing there's some kind of assumption top-down "that"s aren't real knowledge--aren't good enough--and you need the bottom-up "how"s to not be dismissed.
Shitlibs act as if you can't name every exact step of some effect, that means they can weasel their fake reality into the gaps.
>"You can't name the IQ genes and what they do--all these differences could still be environmental."
1: Nobody demands this level of scrutiny about height. We don't know what "height genes" there are or every exact protein pathway that eventually leads to someone being taller or shorter (it's basically the whole genome to varying degrees and an incalculable number of interaction effects), yet since the dawn of humanity we could already see height is extremely heritable because we know the tendency that tall begets tall and short begets short in spite of other influences.
2: In spite of this, yeah, we do in fact know a lot of IQ-influencing genes actually.
>"Why care about heterosexual monogamy? It's just another tradition."
>"If you can't explain to arbitrary detail exactly how it benefits a child to develop in a straight household seeing masculine and feminine role models interacting, that means your whole worldview is bogus."
Nobody can explain anything to an arbitrary level of detail. We just know it works. At some point you have to accept that a given fact happens, and you don't know why, but you can make use of it anyway. Where the rubber meets the road, knowing THAT it works is the important part. If you ever actually know HOW, that's a fun victory lap, but is extremely rare and probably not particularly useful anyway.
They use this shitty objection to justify everything they want, down to bestiality and CSAM. "You can't explain what makes something lead to agreeably bad results, therefore you have to be okay with us doing it."
Just tell them to go drink bleach. They can't explain what exactly would make it deadly off the top of their head, yet somehow they just accept the fact it's poisonous and refuse to. Curious!
RT: https://poa.st/objects/88ce24ee-958b-4a38-adb1-6d3be0a84d8e
I've had to stress something many times that I'm not sure there's a general term for. "Knowing that..." beats "Knowing how..."
Simply knowing that something happens turns out to be much more useful than knowing how. Heuristics beat causal chains.
Knowing "that" some drug reduces heart attacks is the important thing--knowing "how" isn't necessary for it to work, or even to make it. In fact, most drugs don't have known paths of effect to begin with; we just know that taking X is associated with Y happening, and that's useful enough.
A spider has no idea why it builds webs. They just make them, and food spontaneously appears. You can benefit from facts without understanding how they work--that's actually just about everything we do.
We were domesticating plants and animals millennia before learning what genes were; we didn't need to know every microscopic process to benefit from heredity, and we still don't know them to this day, yet breeding works just fine.
Knowing that leeches react to incoming storms let us build the tempest prognosticator. How's it work? Nobody knows! But it sure can predict storms real good. Turns out that's the important thing.
Say a guy with only "that"-type knowledge, gathered from the top down, makes a simple pencil and paper algorithm that's right 90% of the time... Is his method more or less useful than a dweeb running bottom-up "how" calculations on a supercomputer, who tries in vain to simulate the motion of every atom to predict the behavior of a larger system, and is correct no more often than chance? It should be obvious who to put your money on, yet when arguing there's some kind of assumption top-down "that"s aren't real knowledge--aren't good enough--and you need the bottom-up "how"s to not be dismissed.
Shitlibs act as if you can't name every exact step of some effect, that means they can weasel their fake reality into the gaps.
>"You can't name the IQ genes and what they do--all these differences could still be environmental."
1: Nobody demands this level of scrutiny about height. We don't know what "height genes" there are or every exact protein pathway that eventually leads to someone being taller or shorter (it's basically the whole genome to varying degrees and an incalculable number of interaction effects), yet since the dawn of humanity we could already see height is extremely heritable because we know the tendency that tall begets tall and short begets short in spite of other influences.
2: In spite of this, yeah, we do in fact know a lot of IQ-influencing genes actually.
>"Why care about heterosexual monogamy? It's just another tradition."
>"If you can't explain to arbitrary detail exactly how it benefits a child to develop in a straight household seeing masculine and feminine role models interacting, that means your whole worldview is bogus."
Nobody can explain anything to an arbitrary level of detail. We just know it works. At some point you have to accept that a given fact happens, and you don't know why, but you can make use of it anyway. Where the rubber meets the road, knowing THAT it works is the important part. If you ever actually know HOW, that's a fun victory lap, but is extremely rare and probably not particularly useful anyway.
They use this shitty objection to justify everything they want, down to bestiality and CSAM. "You can't explain what makes something lead to agreeably bad results, therefore you have to be okay with us doing it."
Just tell them to go drink bleach. They can't explain what exactly would make it deadly off the top of their head, yet somehow they just accept the fact it's poisonous and refuse to. Curious!
RT: https://poa.st/objects/88ce24ee-958b-4a38-adb1-6d3be0a84d8e
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Reading the comments on these types of videos regarding birth rates never fail to get my blood boiling. These people are so fucking retarded and solipsistic that their answer to this is always "GiVe WoMeN MoRe FrEe ShIt". and to make things worse these subhumans have the audacity to quote scandanavian countries paid maternity leave as to what south korea should be doing to raise birth rates. when will the normies learn? well probably never. fuck it extinction it is.
@Pain66 Saw this comment and I had to investigate further. The fertility rate in Lithuania? 1.7.
Every single time, they bring up examples from countries who cannot even get their birth rate to replacement. It gets tiresome seeing people tout such examples that only show that showering women with money does not fix your birth rate issues.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Kind of amazing how upset the people who are screaming about the future reduction of government jobs appear to be, when you consider many of them were the same ones who vociferously advocated for people to lose their jobs over vax mandates and lockdown policies.
Looks like this will be my new home. Warning: I (probably) have Asperger's, so my be prepared for my autism to show through.
I don't think I am a right wing extremist, but I am sure anyone with low testosterone might think otherwise.
Joined Sep 2022
