You want Rand Paul.

Western values are about giving people freedom to pursue both in their proper place. Freedom of association, and freedom of disassociation. Every civilization that tells it’s people that it must only pursue one or the other instead of letting them apply their own discretion ends up weaker for it. When you force either you limit human action, which is the real foundation of a successful civilization.

I’m going to have to go with Greta on this one. Besides Andrew Tate’s recent news, he was always a low IQ, arrogant, money worshiping man-child. Either one has massive easy openings and Greta happened to be the first one to put in a proper blow. And it was super effective.

But now that we know he’s a woman beating, sex-slaving, nigger. And we now know how he was able to get so much money despite being low IQ (beating eastern European women into performing sex for his friends), doubly good for Greta.

When your enemy does something good, have the decency to recognize it.

For sure at least we need to help the public understand that there is a difference between the institution of science and the institution of academia. Science is had anywhere rationality and measurement are met with open discussion. Science can exist outside of academia and academia can at time be devoid of science. The public needs to understand that science doesn’t mean agreeing with whatever a group says.

That’s a lot of teeth.

Edit: figured it out. That’s kind of freaky.

I have this theory. It is normal for any civilization capable people to bounce back from a dark ages. If you can build society you will build society. North American civilization collapsed (within the continental United States) around 600 AD and never bounced back. The never bouncing back part is what’s weird. The theory is that a mass genocide occurred of their more capable people.

It’s a scary thought because society can collapse and it can collapse permanently. Depending on what selection pressures look like during that collapse what we know of human ability may never be seen again.

I’ve seen it in real life. Stay away from drugs kids.

You can just use a multi-coin wallet. Exodus is one. It’s a little memory bloated though because it uses electron. If you use the same seed in it as you did to set up your Ethereum you should be funding the same wallet set between all your coins and won’t have to transfer between wallets to use funds out of a different software.

They had their internal trial. When trying to have a more official one no fault can be found. But they will still demand punishment and the “offender” to be disposed of. If only there were some point of history we could look back to where the same thing happened…

If such an event did occur in the past, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be able to think of it.

It’s sad what they will ban over. In the end people like that always get proven wrong. The side that wants to ban always turns out to be uninformed idiots. The bans just help them maintain their fantasies longer.

That’s funny, because the story of the historical figure it is based on was originally told to him by a jewish professor of Turkic studies, and was intended to demonize a ruler of the Christian world for not letting Muslims invade his country. They say anti-semetic but it’s clear it was meant to slander a pro-christian figure.

Basically the professor attempted to describe a being of pure evil, and Bram though, I’ll write a story about that kind of character. So Bram writes a story about the caricature of evil itself, and jews say, “Hey, that guy sounds a lot like us, clearly it’s meant as a metaphore.”

Have you ever seen those demolitions in China where they can’t get buildings to collapse into their own footprint even though the buildings are the weakest structures to be called skyscrapers.

Turns out it takes experts to make a building do that and they are rare enough China can’t find them.

“I think there is a good case for banning people even if it’s not in the rules.”

What?

The whole point of rules is to document what you are willing to ban for. Arguing that something shouldn’t be a rule, but should still lead to a ban defies the basic foundations of language. I guess they do that quite a lot.

I thought they were going to go the ammonium nitrate route but that would have involved less casual chemistry to get their from urine. You would need nitric acid, at which point it wouldn’t be a shock that you can make explosives.

I sometimes forget that gunpowder qualifies as an “explosive.”

Anything to get you amped up I guess is an advantage in war. You are playing with your life.

I’ve heard something like this before - that taxation is actually the destruction of money, and not really the collection of money. I am not sure what to think of it.

More and more people are catching onto it. When you look at the history of money it’s more apparent. Money was often instituted where a conquering empire needed to supply its soldiers. You could ship goods constantly to an occupied territory, creating a huge cost, a logistical nightmare, and depriving your citizens of the goods you send. Or you could physically steal from the people in the newly annexed area compelling insurgency. Or you could print up some tokens and give them to your solders and tell all the people that they need to give you ten of these by years end. Now your solders can just buy from the market.

Taxation gives money value so that what they print has enough value to be worth printing. As long as there is some taxation the money has some value, and their money printer enables them to print any arbitrary amount of value on demand as a result.

I disagree about it being inflationary. I’ve noticed that politicians, media, and even economists tied into politics really misunderstand inflation. They only want to understand it as a product of the state of government, ie the deficit.

Inflation is really about consumers verse producers. If there are more consumers and fewer producers you are going to see inflation. You cannot consume what you don’t produce and the increased competition to be the one to purchase the good, service, or labor, produces inflation. You also can’t consume something consumed by someone else. So when the government spends money on real physical things or hiring that causes inflation because those physical goods, labor, or mental effort applied by for example contractors can’t be applied elsewhere. This is why when the government spends it causes you to experience inflation, and not because a number elsewhere (the deficit) went up. If it did it would be spooky action at a distance without explanation.

So the inflation reduction act causes inflation because it spends money and competes with consumers and soaks up more labor into the government. The student loan forgiveness, which I don’t support, doesn’t cause inflation because it does absolutely nothing to change the cash flow of consumers (we weren’t actively paying off those loans anyway) and neither does it modify any aspect of the labor market.

But many economists are empirical rather than epistemological/rational. So deficit has a high degree of correlation with inflation because of that spending, and also because the value of the US dollar is owed to it being a tax payment token and so increases in taxes can reduce inflation… so there is a very very high degree of correlation, but if you don’t understand why that correlation occurs you can think that one immediately drives the other which isn’t true at all.

Well that doesn’t work.

The color aspect is real. I am a kilt owner.

Interesting ideas. I personally am for being attacked as an admin. Though it has never happened to me personally. It’s hard when our emotions get involved in administration and things feel personal (though fairly they are because they are intentionally making them personal). I suppose I’ve always believed in de-personalizing admin work. One of the reasons why I ended up using alt-tech almost exclusively came long ago when I was shadow banned on Reddit for talking about Ellen Pao’s lawsuit on /r/technology. The personal and legal details of many other tech CEOs were discussed openly in the forum all the time and a good chunk of articles were exactly that. So it seemed wrong that discussing that in regards to a major company would be disallowed. It created a hole in discussion and a gap in people’s understanding. It also meant that the CEO of reddit was using their trusted capacity to moderate (which at that time was utilized almost never), not for any benefit to the community but for their own personal interests.

Maybe part of my views also come from applying stoic patterns. Be above their attacks. They are nothing. If the guy wants to be a cancerous piece of shit he can throw his ineffectual tantrums and be ignored for the insignificant POS that he is.