Alexis

[Joseph @Ainemba92293842]

Men are no longer desperate for women.
And modern women are absolutely losing their minds over it.

For the first time in human history, the average man would rather be ALONE than be with the average modern woman.

And that single shift has collapsed an entire empire of female entitlement.
Men realized they were begging for crumbs of affection from women who bring nothing but chaos, bills, and body count to the table.

And now women are sitting in apartments at 28, 30, 32, with a cat, a wine glass, and a TikTok that says

Where have all the good men gone??
The men didn't go anywhere. They just stopped playing a rigged game where they have to be perfect and women get to be flawed and still be called a prize.
And that is what is driving women INSANE.

[Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland]

The word tolerance has been weaponized against you. The weapon was forged in 1965. You should know who forged it and why.

Before there was the French Theory — before Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze made deconstruction elegant and exportable — there was the Frankfurt School. And the Frankfurt School was worse, because it was deliberate. Foucault played with ideas he never expected to have consequences. Herbert Marcuse knew exactly what he was building.

These were not fringe academics. The Institute for Social Research relocated from Frankfurt to Columbia University in 1934 when Hitler came to power. Funded, positioned, and deliberate, they spent the next decades producing the theoretical infrastructure for the dismantling of the civilization that had given them refuge. This is not ingratitude – it is the logic of the project. It was universal – it applied to every Western civilization equally.

Marcuse — godfather of the New Left — published Repressive Tolerance in 1965. The most influential political document most people have never read. Its argument: tolerating wrong ideas is itself oppression. True tolerance requires the suppression of intolerant ideas. Tolerating everything is repressive. Suppressing the wrong things is liberating. The argument is circular by design – it puts the conclusion inside the premise and dares you to find the exit.

The practical implication was stated explicitly: withdrawal of tolerance from movements that are regressive, from speech that reinforces existing hierarchies. The left decides which movements are regressive. Everyone else is silenced – not despite tolerance but in its name. The most sophisticated justification for censorship ever produced, dressed in the vocabulary of liberation.

The French Theory picked up the tools and made them elegant. Foucault made the Frankfurt critique of power literary. Derrida made the critique of meaning philosophical. Deleuze made the critique of identity aesthetic. What had been a political program became a cultural sensibility – which is why it spread further and faster than the original. You can argue with a political program. A cultural sensibility is in the air you breathe.

The generation that read Marcuse went on to run the universities, the media, the foundations, the NGOs, the content moderation departments, and the EU regulatory apparatus. They did not implement his argument cynically – they implemented it sincerely, because they had been taught it as philosophy.

This is why cancel culture does not feel like censorship to the people practicing it. The journalist who demands a speaker be deplatformed genuinely believes she is defending free speech. The HR department that fires the employee for the wrong opinion genuinely believes it is creating an inclusive environment. They have been taught that this is what tolerance means. Marcuse taught them.

Musk has been fighting Marcuse’s argument for four years probably even without knowing Marcuse’s name. Every content moderation policy, every advertiser boycott, every regulatory assault – these are Repressive Tolerance, institutionalized. The DSA is Repressive Tolerance with a legal budget. The fact-checking organization is Repressive Tolerance.

The good news: the argument fails on contact with a free platform – because the suppression becomes visible, the mechanism becomes nameable, and a named mechanism loses half its power. This is why the Counter-Reformation moves so fast against X. Not because X is dangerous. Because X is where Repressive Tolerance gets named.

You are reading this now – which is precisely what Repressive Tolerance was designed to prevent.

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

@kimchipump @AvidCommentator It's not only left vs right, also women vs men, black vs white, zoomers vs boomers, latest is paliwoke vs Isreal/west....

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

@JulianRoepcke Garantiert gibt es da ein paar 5-Jahres-Pläne in westlichen Hauptstädten, um der strategischen Notlage wieder Herr zu werden.

[(((Tendar))) @Tendar]

A drone carrying an explosive package and detonator was found near a parked Ukrainian Antonov cargo plane at Leipzig/Halle Airport.

The discovery triggered a major police operation, forcing a temporary airport shutdown and flight diversions while bomb disposal robots inspected the site. Investigators suspect Russian sabotage.

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

@Kristof_Poland @DrChrisParry But then there are also those without even a trace of empathy, which is also not based on reason.

[Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland]

Women carry an enormous reserve of empathic energy.

For most of history, that energy had a destination: the child. When a society stops having children, the energy doesn’t vanish. It searches for a proxy – whatever the consequences.

The data: Atari, Lai and Dehghani (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2020) measured the moral judgments of 336,691 people across 67 countries. Women score consistently higher than men on Care – protection of the vulnerable, aversion to their suffering. On Loyalty and Authority, the gap is negligible.

The striking part: the gap is widest in Western, individualist, egalitarian countries. Precisely where we are told these differences are imposed roles, they widen as the constraints are lifted.

Feminine morality does not protect the law, the rank, or the rule. It protects the being who suffers – identifiable, embodied. It will let the system collapse to save a kitten.

And when this force enters public debate without its natural anchor?
Simas, Clifford and Kirkland (APSR, 2020): the higher a person’s empathic concern, the more affectively polarized they become. Empathy is exclusive by nature – as tender toward its chosen object as it is intolerant toward whoever contradicts it.

So an energy made for the child, deprived of its recipient, fixes on the substitute — the pet, the distant stranger — and turns the fellow citizen who objects into someone to be cast out.

This is not a fault in women. It is a civilization that produced the most powerful caring instinct in nature, then removed its object. The tragedy is not that women care too much. It is that we built a world with nothing left, close at hand, to care for.

A society without children is crushed between two forces with a single origin: suicidal empathy and murderous apathy.

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

@rumeliobserver @ben_brechtken Herr Knaus weiß genau, dass Spanien nach internationalem Recht dazu verpflichtet ist, Asylbewerbern Schutz zu gewährleisten. Da das physisch und logistisch nicht auf dem Territorium der Exklaven funktionieren kann, werden sie wohl weiter nach Europa transferiert werden müssen.

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

Es ist nurmehr offensichtlich analogen Datenträgern zu trauen. https://t.co/yZXG6stxEN

[Joel Berry @JoelWBerry]

My goodness. One of the best things I’ve ever heard. Bravo.

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

@BeaBovary Vulgärfeminismus. Es ist jedenfalls falsch und unpraktikabel, jemandem für Zahlungsunterlassung in den Justizvollzug zu stecken. Was ist übrigens mit Müttern, die ihre Kinder vernachlässigen?

[Kosher @koshercockney]

The irony of Egyptians shouting “Free Palestine”

[Ricardo @Ric_RTP]

Palantir's CEO just exposed Sam Altman and Dario Amodei for robbing every Fortune 500 company.

Within two minutes, Alex Karp took the entire frontier AI industry apart on national television.

His exact words:

"Every single enterprise in this country, these people are LIVID. They are paying for tokens that create no value. These people are stealing the weights and alpha of my business."

He literally said the entire frontier AI business model is intellectual property extraction dressed up as a subscription.

Then he also destroyed the pricing model with a single question that Silicon Valley still refuses to answer:

"If it was so valuable, let's say I can make you $1 billion tomorrow. Wouldn't I say I'll make you $1 billion and I want 30 percent? Why are they charging for tokens if it's so valuable?"

That question breaks the industry.

If OpenAI and Anthropic's models truly delivered the productivity gains the labs claim, they would take equity or a share of the profit they generate. They would not sell access by the million tokens.

Token pricing is itself the CONFESSION that the product cannot produce reliable value at scale. If it did, they would price for the value. But they price for the compute because that is what they are actually selling.

Karp went even further...

He called the entire arrangement "a wealth tax that does not help the poor. It just punishes."

American businesses are transferring the alpha of their operations, meaning the workflows, the customer data, the strategy memos, the internal models that make them competitive, directly into the training pipelines of a handful of Silicon Valley labs. Once those labs retrain, the customer's own edge becomes the next enterprise product sold back to their competitors.

And the part the AI industry does not want anyone thinking about:

Every enterprise running its confidential documents, its customer conversations, and its financial models through a frontier model is potentially teaching that model HOW to replace them.

The vendor collects the token fee AND the compounding intelligence about that customer's business. That is the mechanism. And that is why Karp used the word "stealing."

He claims this is why every executive he meets is furious in private and silent in public. Nobody wants to be the CEO who called out the labs and then discovered their next competitor was built on their own leaked workflows.

The entire AI industry has been priced for perfection on one assumption:

That frontier labs produce durable, defensible value that justifies infinite compute spend.

But Karp just told us that the customers do not believe that assumption anymore. They believe they are being taxed without benefit, watched without consent, and copied without recourse.

The moment enterprises stop believing, the whole valuation stack shakes.

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

@jalle51 To explain the closure of railway routes into the EU as a measure to prevent escape of Russians from military mobilization cannot be more wrong: none of the affected train connections carried passengers.

[David Hazony @davidhazony]

With people routinely reaching the age of 100, a civilization has two options:
1) to take advantage of the accumulated wisdom of so many more older people
2) to call anyone over 50 “boomer” and “gerontocracy” and render them irrelevant for half their lives.
One of these options is smart. The other is stupid and suicidal.

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

@posta_octavian @cornu__copia The nonsensical policy measures you list have nothing to do with the age of the voters. I know mostly younger people in Germany who would support each of these campaigns.

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

https://t.co/vTYlZjfK9A

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

@JamesTate121 @cornu__copia Ugly.

[Alexis @Alexis_d_T]

@jreichelt Uff, gut dass nicht dicke Frauen im Porsche mit Zigarren erwähnt wurden, sonst wäre das Baddischäming und es gebe wieder Demonstrationen in Berlin.

[Valerio Capraro @ValerioCapraro]

Students without access to LLMs are 2 to 8 times more creative than students with access.

That is the finding of a new paper comparing 2,200 college admissions essays written by humans before ChatGPT with essays generated by GPT-4.

The key point is not individual creativity. GPT-4 can write well, sometimes better than individual students. The problem is collective creativity.

Each new human essay added new semantic territory. New ideas. New angles. New experiences. New combinations.

Each new GPT-4 essay added much less.

The authors call this the diversity growth rate: how much novelty each additional text contributes to the collective pool of ideas.

Humans kept expanding the pool. GPT-4 made the pool converge.

Even when the authors pushed GPT-4 to be more creative, changed parameters, or used chain-of-thought prompting, the homogenizing effect remained.

This is the real danger of AI in education.
Not that students will write worse.
That everyone will write the same.

*
Full paper in the first reply