MMentzer

[MMentzer @MM3NTZER]

@0x49fa98 resisting the urge to sperg seems easier said than done

[FischerKing @FischerKing64]

The way most judges work is they look at a case, have a gut instinct about how it should come out rooted in their prejudices, and then they tell a clerk to work out the legal ‘reasoning’ that justifies their personal feelings.

That’s how to view the birthright citizenship case.

[homans top guy @passcoderonald]

Julius Caesar once said “it is easier to find men who’ll volunteer to die than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience” and I think it’s a perfect illustration of the dissident right

[λέων @Daseincel]

Looksmaxxing going mainstream without its blackpill roots will result in normies becoming more cruel to the genetically unfortunate. Their pity will be replaced by active contempt that one’s ugliness is voluntary due to them ‘not trying hard enough’. All scorn is then justified.

[HYPERBOREAN PARALLAX @gaussianReverie]

@owenbroadcast "Sweetie, I just thought you should know, that's not really the Fish you're seeing now. The Fish-in-itself is unknowable. What you're seeing is just a crude representation, like one of your drawings we keep on the fridge"

[owen cyclops @owenbroadcast]

people talk like they hate x/twitter and this place is a waste of time or a “hellsite” and all that but you get out of here and notice, right or wrong, youre so far ahead of the curve its insane. you meet people at parties that are just starting 2015 twitter right now. today.

[Vacha @TVachaW]

All addiction, at its heart, is addiction to unconsciousness.

It doesn’t matter if it’s social media addiction or heroin addiction.

The addict is always trying to block out consciousness by covering it in stimulation or numbness.

This means the cure to addiction is always more consciousness.

But consciousness can’t just be willed into existence.

Instead, developing consciousness is closely linked to developing insight.

This is because usually the reason we want to hide in unconsciousness is that there’s something we don’t want to be conscious of.

Something in our world that contradicts the story we want to tell ourselves about the world.

Perhaps we want to believe that we can always avoid pain and only experience pleasure.

So we try to push pain into unconsciousness.

Or we want to believe that the things we love will last forever.

So we try to push any sign of decay or change into unconsciousness.

Or there is some story we want to believe about ourselves and who we are.

So we try to push anything that contradicts that story into unconsciousness.

So the way to overcome our addiction to unconsciousness is to build accurate world models.

When we learn to view the world as a place that includes suffering, is impermanent and is free of stable selves, reality starts to match our worldview.

With this insight in place, we no longer need to push suffering, impermanence, and things that threaten our sense of self out of consciousness.

Consciousness then naturally expands of its own accord.

[Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump]

TO MY GREAT FELLOW AMERICANS…

[Devon Stack @Black_Pilled]

If they thought Charlie Kirk was too extreme and deserved to die, imagine what they think of you.

[gfodor.id @gfodor]

What’s the point of liberalism if it leads to the “let’s talk it out” guy bleeding out on the debate stage?

[MMentzer @MM3NTZER]

Lord, have mercy on Charlie Kirk.

[SuRge @SRG_Works]

The fact that normies never embraced the idea that the 'net was a great place to have 'alter egos' and just be free from insane societal peer pressure really is wild. Instead they used the internet to double down and make it impossible for non-conformists to escape.

[Mini Modu @MinModulation]

The idea of the internet as a third space for co-identities, "avatars", "pseudonyms", doesn't really exist for normies. They love selfies and IDs - the net is a purely marketing platform for their Face, like the mall. They love Facebook. They'll love ID Identification.

[Dave Greene @GreeneMan6]

Do socialists ever see results like this and revise their anthropological understanding of power and class?

Or is it just “the proles have false consciousness!” all the way down?

[Hunter Ash @ArtemisConsort]

Environmentalist explanations of group differences are basically god-of-the-gaps, retreating ever-further as we test things.

> “it’s discrimination” equally smart black and white people have the same average earnings

> “okay then the environment must be responsible for lowering their IQs. Probably bad education” nope, we spend the same amount on white and black students, and education differences in the US don’t affect IQ

> “nutrition then” nope also

> “culture?” Adoption studies don’t support this view

> “culture/racism is a vague miasma that permeates all of society, can’t be pinned down to any specific mechanism, and behaves identically to a hereditarian model” yeah that’s where this always ends up

[Michael Druggan @Michael_Druggan]

I don't think the math checks out on this. If IQ is ~ N(100,15) and has heritability of 0.6 then the child's IQ conditional on average parental IQ of X is ~ N(100+0.6(X-100),12)

So a 160+ IQ kid with 100 IQ parents is 5+ SD above the conditional expectation or 1 in 1.7 million

Whereas a 160+ IQ kid with 160 IQ parents is 2+ SD above the conditional expectation or 1 in 40

That's a 42,500x likelihood ratio in favor of the smart parents

This might make it sound like almost all the 160+ people will come from 160 IQ parents. But wait, we haven't accounted for the fact that there are way more 100 IQ parents. The likelihood ratio for 100 vs 160 Parental average IQ is somewhere between 3000 (assuming perfect assertive mating) and 9,000,000 (assuming random mating) so if we assume somewhere in the middle this factor cancels out our other 42500x factor and we end up concluding that a given 160+ IQ person is about as likely to have 100 IQ parents as 160 IQ parents.

Even if you raise the heritability to 0.8 you still expect to see plenty of high IQ kids from average parents under weak assortive mating

[MMentzer @MM3NTZER]

@ArtemisConsort @Xhris57 Stop promoting AI slop, please.

[MMentzer @MM3NTZER]

@zephyr274 “lmaoo... this was fun to write.”

This is AI generated slop.

[MMentzer @MM3NTZER]

@babooshkadude @mvadimsky @Dabstorch @Thomas23353301 @David_CarlsonII @Cheetoignocnito What is there to engage with?

“Women have the right to vote.”
“Not having this is bad.”
“You can’t advocate otherwise because you’ll lose.”

How is this something that can’t simply be dismissed in the same way it’s asserted?