Maple Yeti

I just want to play games

[Gain of Fauci @DschlopesIsBack]

Never forget when LeBron James tried to doxx and threaten the life of a white police officer for killing a black woman before he had any facts about what actually happened. Then the bodycam footage came out and showed that the officer heroically SAVED a black woman’s life that was about to be stabbed to death.

After this, LeBron deleted the post in shame but MILLIONS of people had already seen it and many of them still believe it today. He never apologized to the officer for doing this… just moved on like it never happened.

LeBron James is legitimately a terrible person.

[wanye @xwanyex]

My politics can at least be partly explained by the fact that my baseline is to be surprised that everything is working as well as it is. It’s all amazing, really.

A leftist thinks, “there are so many homeless people, homelessness is out of control.“ But I look at the world and what I see is that almost nobody is homeless. There are 350 million people or whatever in this country and, like, almost none of them are homeless. And have you met people? Do you see what people are like? So many of them are irrational, unpredictable, impatient, lazy.

And yet most of them have jobs and houses and stuff. And it all works. It all just keeps working. You can have an industrial revolution and everything just kind of keeps working.

You can invent the automobile and everything just kind of keeps working.

You can invent the computer and everybody just goes on having a job and living in a house.

It’s amazing. I don’t know how all these people are doing it, but you just look out at the world and see that they’re doing it. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[wanye @xwanyex]

It comes up over and over again that liberals think conservative types are creating special exceptions for their enemies whenever the conservative has blindly applied their conception of justice.

That’s how you get liberals saying stuff like, “oh I’m sure you’d be jumping straight to execution if this were a white guy“ and then every single time a white guy commits a heinous crime the entire right in unison chants, “execute him.”

Or, to take another example, consider the way in which liberals always think that conservatives want and expect immigrants to behave in a certain way just simply because they hate immigrants, when the conservative is merely applying the same standard to which they would hold themselves in a foreign country.

In these cases and many others, liberals are confused by a straightforward and universal conception of justice.

[Hunter Ash @ArtemisConsort]

As a former progressive, this is absolutely accurate and caused me endless frustration with my co-partisans. They fundamentally don’t care if their ideas work. They hardly even have a concept of ideas working. Their entire evaluation function is based on social perception and emotionalism which is, in fact, profoundly selfish and unvirtuous. If you care more about feeling like/being seen as good than you do about results, you’re a selfish parasite. Hardly exclusive to the left, but it defines the leftist project in a way it doesn’t define any other political faction.

[The Culturist @the_culturist_]

The UK government flagged these books (among others) as potential signs of far-right extremism.

List includes Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, Hobbes' Leviathan, Milton's Paradise Lost. You may be an extremist if you've read these.

What else would you add to the list?

[vittorio @IterIntellectus]

truly fascinating that every book flagged as potential sign of "far-right extremism" argues that the individual has rights the state can't take away

when a government flags its own foundations (and the foundations of every western liberal democracy) as extremism it may be time to seriously worry

[Agrippa @agrippa_dr]

@SFBART @maxdubler

[Kevin Callahan 🚀 @KevGCallahan]

I don’t think the liberals deserve any credit and here is why.

I wouldn’t characterize the new immigration targets as clamping down “hard” since they are still record numbers, but what I think is irrelevant.

Studies and polling shows that Canadians have unfortunately soured on immigration. This aversion is higher in right voting people. So I’d say the minimal efforts on immigration are not enough to appease right leaning voters.

I’d also argue that the Liberals have done very little on most files including:

1. Crime including bail reform
2. Housing - starts are down
3. Cost of living
4. Debt and deficits - record levels of debt
5. Economy

I say all this to say that the liberals have done very little to nothing to appease right leaning voters. So I would give them no credit in the lack of right wing populism.

[Lauren Chen @TheLaurenChen]

No one on the left in 2012 believed in open borders, transing kids, or abolishing the police/prisons.

This is an attempt to rewrite history to hide how quickly you've become radicalized.

It's not working.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Well said

[Coddled Affluent Professional @feelsdesperate]

Solzhenitsyn had these scenes where members of the party faithful would get deposited off the prison train at the gulag to begin their years of hard labor incredulous and insistent that some ‘mistake had been made’ and that the system wasn’t doing what it was designed for. It’s sad if our educational system has failed in imparting the lessons of the 20th century to the degree that people like Stancil aren’t able to enjoy the irony that these dumbed down little episodes have deep historical echoes.

[Hunter Ash @ArtemisConsort]

Will Stancil is having the same experiences I had as a progressive at 25. I wanted to actually accomplish progressive goals, which requires being pragmatic and rational. This attitude was widely condemned by my fellow progressives as fascist-adjacent. Eventually, I realized it wasn’t a coincidence that the people who shared my goals were not only constitutionally incapable of reason but actively hostile towards it.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

No, women are not retarded.

They are conformist.

To fall for, actually fall for, narratives like the Covid story, the BLM story, the ICE is Gestapo story, to actually whole-heartedly believe them, yeah, you would have to be kinda retarded.

But women didn't "fall for" those stories. Not exactly.

They aligned to them.

This means they went along with them, repeated them, reinforced them, not because they were convinced by evidence, but because they were convinced by the appearance of consensus.

Women are evolved to believe what the rest of the tribe appears to believe. Evidence is not considered.

Why?

Well, humans are smart. We survive by being smart. And in order to be smart, we need to grow big brains, and get started growing those brains early.

Which means human babies have giant heads. And in order to deliver those giant heads, human babies have to be born prematurely. Otherwise, head won't fit through pelvic girdle, and baby and mother both die.

This means all human babies are premature. That's why horses can run at the age of six hours, but humans can't lift our giant heads for months.

This means that human women, whether they are pregnant with a giant-headed baby, caring for a giant-headed baby, or just might be either one at any moment, are uniquely helpless and dependent on the support and goodwill of the tribe.

Metaphorically, and often literally, a woman lives in someone else's house — not because she's a useless layabout, but because she is too busy building the future to support herself in the present.

When you're in that position, you have to keep your controversial ideas to yourself.

And when you evolve in that position, you evolve to have no controversial ideas.

This was fine for millions of years. There was a division of labor. Women made people, men made stuff. And because the women made all those biological sacrifices to make men with big brains, the men were really good at making stuff. And the stuff was really, really useful, and it became big piles of stuff called "cities", and then it became a global system of stuff called "civilization".

The stuff became so valuable that there were big arguments about what to do with the stuff, which was called "politics". But the women stayed out of politics, because politics was about stuff, stuff was men's job, and no matter who won the arguments, the winners always made sure the women had enough stuff.

Why?

Because dependent, future-investing, conformist women didn't evolve in a vacuum. Men evolved along with them. When you have dependent women, you evolve protective men, because tribes full of men who aren't protective don't have future generations.

So women didn't wield political power directly. They were represented by men, and had a lot less skin in the game.

Eventually, someone decided this was unfair. This idea didn't happen suddenly, and for no reason at all, but that's a topic for another day.

But something funny happens when you give political power to women, especially in the form of a vote.

You see, then you have a situation where 50% of the vote is held by people who require a great variety of different persuasion techniques or evidence to convince them of something. And the other 50% is held by women, who are persuaded by only one thing... the appearance of prevailing consensus and power.

And what form of persuasion do you think is cheapest and easiest to project?

Women's suffrage removes evidence and discourse from politics, and replaces it with "consensus theater"... a puppet show designed to create the illusion of a single prevailing opinion.

When a narrative prevails, women vote for it, not because they are persuaded, but because it prevails.

This is an explosive feedback loop — a reverse thermostat which turns the air conditioner on when it's freezing, and runs the furnace all summer.

Because women's idea of how urgent an issue is comes not from an analysis of the situation, but an analysis of how many people endorse it.

And any opinion, no matter how contrary to obvious facts, no matter how retarded, no matter how destructive, can become the prevailing political platform, so long as women can be convince that most other people think so.

Covid was a Chinese bioweapon. The Covid shot was toxic and did not protect against Covid.

George Floyd was violent drug zombie who died of an overdose, and Derek Chauvin is in prison merely for being the last guy to touch him.

Police officers do not disproportionately kill innocent black men who are minding their own business, and body cams prove this.

Men cannot become women. The technology doesn't exist, and may not ever exist.

Diversity is, in fact, our greatest weakness. Diversity + integration = war.

America is better off without the vast majority of immigrants, even the ones who don't murder and steal.

Socialism doesn't work in any unit larger than the extended family. Communism has never worked, and cannot work.

Cows are health food. Plants are usually not.

Some kids are smarter than others, and we need to invest more effort in them, not less.

All of these things are inherently obvious, and women are not too retarded to see that, because they are not retarded at all. They are merely conformist. Susceptible to political theater.

So democracies cannot permanently survive female suffrage. No one is particularly happy about this, not even curmudgeonly iconoclasts like me who are willing to say it out loud. It's not only unfair in principle, it's decidedly inconvenient in practice.

The universe, of course, does not care.

We cannot change women. We can only change politics.

That won't be easy, either. But it's possible, even if the eventual process involves a lot more violence, or space colonization, than we find convenient.

[Netflix @netflix]

ALEX HONNOLD AFTER COMPLETING HIS FREE SOLO OF TAIPEI 101: "Sick."

The 101 story climb took 1 hour and 35 minutes #SkyscraperLIVE

[Pat McAfee @PatMcAfeeShow]

The most tense viewing experience I’ve had.. maybe ever

That was unbelievable..

THANK YOU BROTHER @AlexHonnold

#SkyscraperLIVE

[wanye @xwanyex]

You can make human beings. Are you listening to me? You can literally make human beings. And it gets even better than that, because they’re not like random strangers, they’re literally constructed from the same genetic code that makes you who you are.

They’re made from the same parts that make up your mother or your brother or your sister or your grandmother. They are new versions of the people on this planet who you love the most. It’s the craziest thing ever. It matters more than anything else, by an extremely wide margin.

The fact that people log on here and talk about how they prefer sleeping in or going to the movies whenever they want is practically demonic, by comparison.

[Hunter Ash @ArtemisConsort]

> “It’s simply morally unacceptable to do X”

> Okay, how would society function efficiently without X?

If you can’t answer the second question, you should just give up on politics and root for a sports team or something.

“Even one false conviction out of 10,000 is too many!”

Okay but it’s impossible for any justice system to be that accurate, so the only alternative is not having one at all, which would be worse.

“As long as one person is starving, we shouldn’t do space exploration/big physics experiments/expensive R&D, etc”

Okay well if we’d followed that rule there would be far more starving people today, because we’d never have industrialized.

Having a moral emotion is not enough. Outrage at some individual bad thing is not a policy position. You need to actually think through what sorts of laws are plausible, how they would be enforced, and all the downstream consequences of that. If you can’t do that, get another hobby.

All policy choices involve trade-offs. No possible system spares every innocent person, eliminates all pain, solves every problem. You have to weigh pros and cons knowing that, at scale, this means people will suffer and die no matter what choice you make. You must quantify the suffering, make the best choice possible knowing it will still be imperfect. You cannot have any infinities in your equations. Even the worst imaginable tragedy must be counted as finite and weighed against alternatives. Nothing can be non-negotiable in principle.

Refusing to do this is not moral purity. It’s moral cowardice.

[vittorio @IterIntellectus]

> be obama 2008
> "we need border security"
> "marriage is between a man and a woman"
> "illegal immigration hurts american workers"
> win women by historic margins
> be conservative 2026
> say exact same things
> "far-right hate movement"
> women flee in terror

the overton window moved, not the right. modern republicans would be democrats 20 years ago and radicals 60 years ago. a decade of censorship shifted both parties leftward.

hanania, of course, is wrong. he thinks this is a messaging problem when it's an incentives problem.

two things happened:
the definition of "hateful" expanded to include positions that were mainstream democrat 15 years ago and women lean towards what *feels* less hateful

single women benefit disproportionately from expanded government. the state becomes the provider when men can't or won't
voting patterns track marital status almost perfectly. married women vote like men, single women vote for more government
the "hate" framing is downstream rationalization of economic interest

you cant message your way past incentive structures

[Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays]

A Final Message From Scott Adams

[tobi lutke @tobi]

This is a great honeypot. Any government official who suggests banning X is not a public servant and needs to resign. Let’s see what happens.