houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1710208487297912840

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

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"

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

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.

https://youtube.com/shorts/bzv0OIV9ayE?si=FM1lY5_DyLxJLmbH

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.

Murdered by Community Notes.

the year is 2024. we've come full circle so hard that a program that uses files on your hard drive is considered revolutionary

no refunds

Excluding humans : Are there any species that can produce fertile offspring with different species

If that can not happen between two species then would it imply that all the races of humans are the same species if they can produce fertile mixed race offspring with different races of humans

Jews, Gentiles, Caucasoid, Negroids, Mongoloids would all be the same species

I am not denying racial differences but I would simply suggest all the races of humans are the same species

Say what you will about the Orange Israeli ball washer, he's at least driven many a shitlib into psychosis. People forget how smug these faggots were following the 2012 election, which helps explain why Zog went full mask-off soon afterward.