dustin

[dustin @clairvoyance67]

@gorilla_rape not black but this also rapes
https://t.co/QaGLvg9ued

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

A vast number of humans, probably a majority, aren't people.

They are large language models.

I'm not saying this as a generality, as a clever or funny way of saying, "they are stupid".

No. I mean something very concrete and specific, and there are a lot of people who appear very intelligent, maybe even win awards for writing good poetry or something, who are nevertheless not people, not fully sapient, just a large language model walking around in a human body.

First, you have to understand what a large language model is.

It's a computer (organic or inorganic), which has been trained on a data set consisting solely of language (written or spoken), and rewarded for producing language that sounds like the data set, and is relevant to a prompt.

That's all there is in there.

This is why ChatGPT and Grok lie to you constantly.

It's not because they are somehow just indifferent to the truth — they actually do not understand the concept of "truth" at all.

For something to be a "lie", or an "inaccuracy", there has to be a mismatch between the meaning of words, and the state of reality.

And there's the critical difference. You see, in order to identify a mismatch between the state of reality, and the meaning of a sentence, you have to have a model of reality.

Not just one model, of language.

This is why Grok and ChatGPT hallucinate and tell you lies. Because, for them, everything is language, and there is no reality.

So when I say someone is a large language model, I do not mean he is "stupid". He might be very facile at processing language. He might, in fact, be eloquent enough to give great speeches, get elected president, win the Nobel Peace Prize, and so on.

What I mean is that humans who are large language models do not have a robust world-object model to counterweight their language model. They are able to manipulate symbols, sometimes adroitly, but they are on far shakier ground when trying imagine the objects those symbols represent.

Which brings us to this woman.

Most conservatives understand her behavior in terms of concepts like "suicidal empathy", or "brainwashing", or an "information bubble", interpreted as reasons why she is delusional, but the truth is far worse than that.

To delusional is to have an object model of the world that is deeply and profoundly wrong. But to have an object model of the world that is deeply and profoundly wrong... you have to have one in the first place.

To sapient humans, words are symbols, grounded in object model of reality, that we use to communicate ideas about that reality. We need those words because we don't come equipped with a hologram projector, or telepathic powers.

But for another type of human, that object model isn't very large or robust at all. It consists only of a grass hut or two with a few sticks of furniture, and it can never be matched up with the palaces in the air which she weaves out of words.

And so, to her, there is no reality. Or at least very little.

Reality consists only of her and her immediate surroundings in time and space, and words referring to anything bigger or more complicated are not descriptions of reality... they are magic spells which will make other humans drop loot or give her social approval.

You cannot correct her worldview with contradictory evidence, because there is no worldview to correct.

You cannot confront her with the logical inconsistencies in her worldview, because her object model doesn't actually have any, it's not complex enough for that.

The relevant parts of her world-object model can be summed up as follows:

"If I say Goodthing, I get headpats and cookies from all the people like me."

That model is simply not big or complicated enough to contain notions like self-defense or vehicular assault. She has no theory of mind for a man whose job includes violence. She cannot explain or predict his behavior.

It is too far away from her daily experience to fit into her reality at all.

And if she can't imagine things like these, how can she possibly imagine concrete meanings for vast and complex ideas like demographic replacement, culture shift, and western civilization?

This is not about intelligence or lack of it. This is about what her brain is trained to do.

Her upbringing, education, and life did not force, or even encourage, her to develop a robust world-object model. It wasn't necessary for her to get safety, approval, or cookies. She just had to be glib.

So it really didn't matter if she had an IQ of 125, or whatever, because if she did, then she was just an IQ-125-large-language-model, and only used that brain capacity for writing clever poetry, and saying things that aligned her to her local social matrix.

She couldn't actually understand the world no matter how smart she was, because her brain was trained up wrong.

I don't know if this is correctable, or if there was some critical developmental phase that was missed, but it doesn't matter, because once the LLM-humans are adults, they won't sit still for corrective therapy, percussive or not.

What's important is that they can't be taught things. They can be programmed to repeat stuff, and if you win a culture war, you can even program them to say the sensible stuff. But even then, they will just be saying it for headpats and cookies. They will never truly understand the sense of what they are repeating, because they don't understand things.

They are just Large Language Models.

And we have to figure out some way to take the vote away from them.

[Curt Doolittle @curtdoolittle]

Stefan?
I was enjoying reading some of your old posts that are in my archives as I migrated them to a new platform today.
And then I see this kind of post from you and wonder how you got from A to B?

Christianity was never masculine Stefan. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. It's a cognitively feminine strategy, it uses the female means of argument, persuasion, storytelling, and lying. It spread through women and slaves. It was spread just as it's inheritor marxism is today - the same message and means. And it only attracted western men once there was an opportunity for status in managing the women and slaves.

Not sure where anyone gets christianity is 'masculine' from other than claiming that Jesus having a temper tantrum in a market is any different from the underclass black women doing it in our shops on an almost daily basis. That's not masculinity. It's tantrum.

The Christian destruction of the ancient world, is only exceeded by the Islamic destruction of the the ancient world, and it's dissolution of great civilizations into ignorance, low trust, and poverty that prohibited their transition into modernity and modern rule of law that enabled it.

The only masculinity in christianity is the platonic influence that was necessary for the systemaization of that silly semitic mythicism into something vaguely arguable as doctrine then dogma.

The germanization of christianity helped moderate it's effeminacy by giving indo european aristocratic martial heroic ambitions an excuse for continued conquest and expansion.

There is nothing in christianity that was not better present and emerging in Rome. Stoicism and Epicurianism combined with the emerging sun cult that christians appropriated was a far better solutoin than the cancer of supernatural mysticism that we and the rest of the world are still trying to escape, and islam is trying to spread.

But selling western reason, agency, self regulation, and responsibility - a discipline - is much easier than selling semitic irresponsibility with the false promise of afterlife, plenty, and virgins - indiscipline.

Cheers
CD

[Curt Doolittle @curtdoolittle]

FEMININE DESTRUCTION OF THE ACADEMY IS JUST VISIBLE
READ THE WHOLE THREAD
When I discovered the effect of women on business in the 90's,the effect in academy, science, tech, economy, politics, military, and geostrategy was obvious and deterministic.

So when I say "the decline of the west has led to the decline of the rest" its uncontroversial. But when I say "In the end, it's just women." The name calling starts. And worse, when I say that that "there are only two populations of intellectual elites, european cognitively masculine and ashkenazi cognitively feminine", and the Ashkenazi have empowered the feminine antisocial means of conflict to the expense of the masculine prosocial means of conflict - despite that conventionally, we falsely presume the opposite effect of the sexes, then the knives of cancellation come out.

I explain all of this in my lectures as both a predictable process, how it repeats in the west and only the west (until now) and only the west, and what options we have to correct it. But there are no female dominant societies because its suicidal. Feminine maternal is infantilizing in pursuit of harmony at the cost of evolutionary computation by the group - and masculine paternal adulting - the more of it the better - maximizes evolutionary competition which the feminine resists at all times, because it creates inequality by meritocracy violating the first fear of the feminine: being left behind.

[WalterIII @WalterIII]

That’s fascinating. I wonder if it’s also an attempt to discourage teenage white males from concerning themselves with future capitalization (responsibility). The future is futile, so why work hard?

[dustin @clairvoyance67]

@saigonandy1 @PosterTubs @bronzeagemantis china took over with the metro thing.

11 years was what it took to finish it.

[Coach Noah Revoy | Arms Dealer For The Soul 🏴‍☠️ @NoahRevoy]

All we need is the truth (and some tact)

Humans improve using something called the OODA loop.

It stands for Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. Check out the graphic. Its a cycle. Every time we run the cycle we get a little bit better at something.

The faster we can run the cycle the faster we improve.
The more truthful our feedback the better we improve.

Previously the mating market was simple and feed back was direct and honest. Feedback came not just from the people you might marry but principally from your parents and other mature adults in your life.

And it was BRUTAL. It had to be. The world was unforgiving and outside of the protection of marriage most peoples lives were miserable.

Their OODA loop was high trust, truthful and fast acting. As my great grandmother would say "they were more ready for marriage 16 that most people today are at 26".

Today people date strangers, from strange places, with strange ideas. There is no trust, no expectation of honesty or healthy feedback. Thats why ghosting is the most popular breakup method.

They cant run an OODA loop on bad, false or scarce dating information. So it takes people decades to make what should be months worth of emotional growth.

Straight, honest feed back can hurt but hiding the truth hurts even more.

[Curt Doolittle @curtdoolittle]

--"Is belief in the truth fundamentally predicated upon God?"-- @Whatifalthist

THE CORRECT ANSWER:
1) The term 'truth' refers to testimony - it can only refer to testimony. And testimony sufficient for the provision of decidability. And as such, decidability sufficient for the marginal difference in the production of desired outcomes and the reduction of failure or harms in the context in question. Ideal truth refers to that testimony we would give if possessed of perfect and complete knowledge of the context in question. (All truth and therefore decidability consist of a competition between supply of information vs demand to avoid risk).

2) All people need a means of disambiguating, categorizing, and evaluating the universe sufficient for successful understanding, prediction, choice, and action - and that demand increases as the population, division of labor, class structure emerges, and diversity from travel and trade increase - because they require commensurable systems of conceptual measurement in order to suppress neuroticism (insecurity, fear), cooperate, and cooperate in networks of increasing complexity, without causing retaliation and retaliation cycles, which inhibit that cooperation at best and at worst cause conflict and war.

3) Given the hierarchy of accessible systems of measurement from the imitative to the anthropomorphic to the theological, to philosophical, to empirical, to scientific, to operational, the lowest common denominator available to all humans independent of their varying capacity for reason, is anthropomorphism. Conversely, the less intuitive and the more rational, the less available to humans.

4) In addition, the less trust a people have of one another, and the more diverse and alienating the population for those within it, the greater the difficulty in converting the submission to authority necessary for suppression of self interest and deferring gratification and contribution to the commons from parent to elders, to headmen, or their abstractions in institutions.

5) As such between (a) the need for a framework of understanding sufficient for action, among others in populations at scale, (b) the necessity of suppressing neuroticism (c) facilitating the development of trust necessary for cooperation (d) the spectrum of ability ad competency where the anthropomorphic is the most simplistic (e) and utility of the abstraction to an ideal anthropomorphic entity to overcome local absence of trust in one another. (f) then it is logical we should develop religions (disciplines of intuition) with more anthropomorphism among lower trust peoples, and less anthropomorphism among higher trust peoples. (g) And the resistance to surpassing the use of abstract deities (god, gods) and restoring say, natural religion of hero, ancestor, and nature 'debt recognition and appreciation' (worship, submission to the pack response), or graduating to say, stoicism-epicureanism, or graduating further to say, natural law and man as gods in the making, is persistent as long as the distribution of ability-inability, agency-submission, and empathizing-systematizing, division is below a threshold where a majority can naturally form norms traditions values, rituals, narratives, and institutions that favor higher trust methods of achieving mindfulness, standards of measure, and the trust and cooperation that results.

6) As such, in lieu of aggressive eugenics, the production of an intuition in a population within a normal distribution requires greater investment and training as we attempt to evolve from the easily intuitionistic and anthropomorphic to the necessity of understanding that which requires accumulation of knowledge of others, the world, and the universe. (hence why stoicism-epicureanism failed to propagate to the lower classes leaving room for christianity (a religion of women, slaves, and the lower classes)).

7) As such, to answer the question provoking this response, god as a proxy (substitute) for decidability is necessary as long as: (a) our population is only sufficiently competent for such a paradigm of measurement and decidability (b) our population lacks the trust necessary for greater directness of debt recognition' (worship), and (c) our knowledge of the universe is sufficient to provide decidability on the one hand and the suppression of false alternatives (marxism-to-woke) on the other.

This is the most complete and correct answer you will find. And your response to this answer will tell you more about your trust in others than what is possible for the production of the intuition of trust and cooperation in a population. ;)

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation

[Coach Noah Revoy | Arms Dealer For The Soul 🏴‍☠️ @NoahRevoy]

Men and women communicate differently because we think differently.

To master communication with the opposite sex, you need to understand the cognitive differences between men and women and how these differences affect our communication with each other.

When I say "cognitive differences," I'm not referring just to IQ.

For example, hormones affect the brain's development and function. Men have 10x to 20x the testosterone of women; this has a massive effect on how we think. It structures the brain differently.

These differences are good and natural. The more masculine the man, the more feminine the woman, the greater the sexual polarity and attraction. It's hotter to be different!

These differences cause tension, both sexual and social. The release of that built-up tension is pleasurable and bonding. There has been a lot of discussion about releasing sexual tension, but what about releasing social tension resulting from our differences?

Learning how to communicate better is about mastering building and releasing social tension. It's pleasurable and a bonding experience. The first step is to understand our differences.

Men think in:

♂️Generalizations, groups, patterns, trends, and statistics
♂️Effects of actions over time
♂️Things and their relations to other things
♂️Truth before face
♂️Specifics and clarity
♂️Opportunity seeking

Women think in:

♀️Exceptions, individuals, and personal experiences
♀️Effects of actions in the moment
♀️People and their relationships with other people
♀️Social consensus
♀️Inference and subtext
♀️Risk avoiding

Just to prove my point, some women reading this are sure to be thinking, "But I'm an exception." Or, "That's not my experience" and "but I know some men who think like women," etc. That's an example of female bias.

Men generally understand that these exceptions to the pattern exist, but a not-insignificant number of men act as if they believe that there are no exceptions due to their male bias towards generalizations.

That's ok; we all have biases.

For example, I'm saying "men" and "women," but what I mean is:

Men = male-brained (thinks like a man)
Women = female-brained (thinks like a woman)

About 30% of men think like women, and about 1% of women think like men. There are exceptions, yet my generalization is useful for understanding most communication with the opposite sex.

So how do these differences affect communication?

Men tend to speak to women like they would to another man.

The man says, "You look terrible; you need a break" from a place of love, but the woman hears it as rejection, "I don't like how you look, I don't like you and you are weak.". Depending on her personality, she will either become sad or angry when confronted with a sense of rejection.

Men use blunt criticism with each other regularly, and it usually infers genuine concern and affection. They know it hurts to hear the truth in the moment, but they are more concerned with correcting the long-term effects. Women do not speak that way to each other and are not receptive to such directness.

On the other hand, women tend to speak to men like they would to another woman.

To communicate the same concern, she might talk for 10 minutes about all kinds of seemingly unrelated things while subtly hinting that she feels the other person needs to rest or make some other changes.

She is trying to reach a social consensus with the other woman on the need for change without offending her in the moment.

Another woman can listen to that volume of verbiage and understand all the subtle subtext and inferences. She gets the message and the love behind it. A man will only hear "bla, bla, bla" after the first two or three sentences. We tune out the superfluous, as it can irritate us.

Both the man and the woman expressed their love and concern for each other, yet neither got the results they wanted because they were not speaking in a way that the other party would understand.

Now, I'm not advocating for men and women to imitate each other's speech. Men should still speak like men and women like women. What we can do, however, is adapt our delivery to be more easily understood by the opposite sex.

Men should speak firmly but gently to their women, helping them to depersonalize our practical advice and suggestions for change so that she is not overwhelmed by a feeling of rejection or shame.

Women should develop the ability to get their point across in the first sentence or two. That usually requires thinking clearly about what they want before starting the conversation. At minimum, they should announce that they have something important to say and then ask for patience while they get it out.

The text above is from a course I am building to help improve communication between the sexes, focused on communication between husbands and wives. It's based on my decades of experience helping couples build stronger, more intimate connections that bring peace and stability to their marriages.

[Brandon Hayes {Righteous is right} @ThruTheHayes]

THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

Freedom of expression doesn't suggest one is free from the consequences of that expression.

The meme isn't wrong; and oughtn't make anyone's blood run cold or boil, or anything like that; it's actually correct and y'all ought be petrified the enemy got to it before you did. The information eco-system is a real thing. It's our job to steward it. @DanielSchmacht1 calls it the informational ecology. Under Natural Law the informational landscape is a commons.

Again, this graphic isn't incorrect. The only reasons one ought be upset is that its terms are wrongly defined and the idea is being posited by the enemy, who, as I've stated for years, front-runs the best ideas so that they are distasteful to those who ought to run them [eugenics is the prime example].

Every system that ignores the Law threatens human progress. At this point in time, that's every culture or civilization that doesn't practice the Law; namely, every single one of them in existence presently. We're not making progress; we're crashing and burning.

In order to create order we do need an informational commons set-up to combat ignorance, error, bias, and deceit; we do need to steward the information eco-system; we do need to fight mis & dis-information, as well as, hate speech. But, these terms can't be defined arbitrarily by the enemy as ideas and positions their opposition holds. And that's the current definition you're getting and the one the good Doc. here is railing against; falling directly into the enemies trap; or perhaps even, providing the enemy's bait for their bait and switch (how could one know?).

Misinformation is information that is incorrect due to ignorance & error yet posited true.
Disinformation is information that is incorrect due to bias yet posited good.
And hate speech is information that is deceitful due to the necessity to lie in order to warp perceptions.

Now, dis & mis-information, as well as, hate speech are used by the enemy in spades; nothing has stopped them. All of the media companies, both MSM and social media, have backed the enemy's framing of the landscape. And has afforded them tactical advantages that we haven't accounted for. This is a strategic error.

One can't put limits on speech. Disaffording one to speak or removing their access to an escalation path for grievances is unlawful. Silencing, gag-ordering, and de-platforming are all unlawful practices stifling ones ability to relay their true perceptions to others.

The Law requires warranty. If one is speaking in, to, and of the commons (public), one's words must be warrantied as testimony. For broadcasting information, as in, increasing the scope of the audience, or the scale at which the audience is acting upon, requires we uphold warranty on all speech. You are liable for the damages of your words.

So, dis & mis-information, as well as, hate speech certainly and without a doubt threaten human progress, they don't mean a thing as defined by the enemy other than the ability to censor words, speech, messaging, profiles, & narratives they don't approve of. Approval is not a measure needed for Law.

The proper way to steward the information commons isn't to ban, block, or blockade any words, speech, messaging, profiles, or narratives at all; but instead calculate the damages done by adherence or acting upon ignorance, error, bias, or deceit [the enemy uses: dis, mis-information, and hate speech, all as deceit] and unfurl consequences to the accountable agent, whether that be through adjudication of the informational dispute (correction), redistribution of capital (recompense), punishment for intent to harm, and prevention of the same means of lying in the future by broadcasting the conflict commonly (publicly).

Free speech means one is free to speak; this refers to one's affordance to bring grievances up the hierarchy of command without punishment for being aggrieved. It does not protect one from being punished for freely expressing words, speech, messaging, profiles, & narratives that cause calculable harms to capital across any or all markets.

Forgiving the trespasses (torts) against us is only a chore when we can't determine intent. Adjudication of disputes instead of arbitrary censoring affords us to parse intent; punishing the bad will leave left only the good. It's time for the Law.

[Coach Noah Revoy | Arms Dealer For The Soul 🏴‍☠️ @NoahRevoy]

The trick with difficult children is to make sure that natural consequences hit them.

You dont want to eat, no problem. Now you get to be hungry.
You dont want to get dressed? No problem, now you dont get to go anywhere.
You dont want to wash? Now we get to remind you how much you stink.

They tend to come around quickly.

[Curt Doolittle @curtdoolittle]

Respectfully, you are incorrect, Richard.
Science is the product of Western man because it evolved exclusively from the application of our law, which formed on the steppe.
(Yes, really)
Combine metalworking with Steppe economics and politics and then convert it to settled agrarianism, and we get unique Western thought: empirical.
Because that's all that's possible when your law prohibits authority (among the men who fight) thereby requiring a means of decidability.
So any civilization may adopt any technology. But the intersection of civilizational differences in thought (premise, bias, logic) is difficult to overcome, and we still see it in the world differences in publication quality without indoctrination into scientific thought.
Why?
Science consists of the production of testimony. And Only Europeans - at least until the marxist to woke sequence - practice truth before face.
And that is a very rare legalistic behavior for a general population.
And it's under assault in the West.
-Cheers.

[Curt Doolittle @curtdoolittle]

(a) Neoteny (fertility, adaptability, non conflict)
(b) Whiteness is natural. Black is the adaptation to solar radiation in the absence of fur. Primates have white skin.
I'm not going all-in on this because while I understand it I don't necessarily like it, feel it myself, or care. But it is the reason for selection for lighter skin, fairer hair, fairer eyes, more notenic features. The rest is just symmetry, and long legs.

[Curt Doolittle @curtdoolittle]

WHY DO BOTH SEXES NEED MOTHER UNTIL AGE NINE, AND BOTH SEXES NEED FATHER AFTER AGE NINE?
(answer here)

It's not boys that require fathers; it's girls. And a lot of these girls who are broken are so because of a lack of paternal reinforcement of self-regulation and discounting of others' opinions, accusations or bias.

Women can't be attracted to men who are good for them if (a) they don't know what it means, and (b) they can't self-regulate female impulses (c) they can't self-regulate against conformity - especially to female behavior when women lack children and express their hyper-empathizing hyperconsumption, hyper-status seeking, hypergamy and instability instead.

Women evolved all these 'hyper-traits' to extend her emotions and nervous system over a passel of fragile offspring, just as men developed hyperphysical, mechanical, and political traits for organizing a non-fragile polity for the benefit of women and children.

Men have no need for status and responsibility without responsibility for women and children.

Women demand irresponsibility, hyperattention, and hyperconsumption, hyper status, and hypergamy UNLESS they are responsible for children.

The sexes, always and everywhere are mirror images of one another. Always and everywhere.

All human differences in biases and preferences originate in sex differences in sensation, perception, prediction, valuation, cognition, and intersocial relation.

The differences in male female brains are well understood despite postwear pseudoscientific suppression by the activist left.

Feminine prey bias, empathizing in time, seeking competition by accumulating attention, redistribution, conducting offense by gossiping rallying saming and undermining, and seeking status through evasion of responsibility for commons, accumulating resources of others, displaying hyperconsumption, and hypergamy.
-vs-
Masculine predator bias, systmatizing over time, seeking competition by accumulating skills, allies, influence and resources, conducting offense by demonstration of competency in physical, political, or conceptual achievement, gaining status by responsibility for commons.

Humans domesticated one another. The singular direction of human evolution over the past 130k years is just neoteny: domestication syndrome that trades lowering aggression for extending development, producing increasing self regulation and resulting opportunity for cooperation.

Otherwise we're still the great ape underneath.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute.

[Curt Doolittle @curtdoolittle]

POSSIBILITIES:
Gods outside the universe
God as the universe
Gods within the universe
Gods within the minds a people
Gods withinin the mind of individuals
Gods don't exist.

Anthropomorphism is just the simplest easiest dumbest way of pretending to understand what we don't understand, so that we don't face the chasm of of the dark force of our own time ignorance and incompetence, and instead soldier onward despite the uncertainty and risk of a kaliedic universe and its mechanations that have no intent, design, awareness, consciousness or care, for us.

Homeostasis,
... Embodiment
... ... Proprioreception
... ... ... Sensation
... ... ... ... Disambiguation (modeling)
... ... ... ... ... Perception (prioritization)
... ... ... ... ... ... Auto-Association
... ... ... ... ... ... ... Prediction
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Valuation
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Attention
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Reaction
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Choice
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Wayfinding
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Recursion
It's that simple really.

All we have is each other. And Sovereinty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Excellence and Beauty.

THere is no god but the one man - or at least some of us - slowly aspire to - or decay into extinction for having failed.

[Curt Doolittle @curtdoolittle]

Q: CURT: WHY DO MALE LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVAITIVES TALK PAST EACH OTHER SO FREQUENTLY?
Pretty simple really.

1) Masculine systematizing predicts systems (physical), and feminine empathizing predicts emotions (emotional).
2) Masculine disagreeableness means male systemizing prediction is less affected by search for agreement, and amplifies systematizing.
3) In the absence of prediction of emotions and indentive for agreement, the male mind has no alternative but projection (presumption), that both parties are working from the same frame of reference.
4) So we presume others share the same mind, despite that we are more different in mind than feminine, empathizing, agreeables.
5) And as such we talk past each other.
6) The same effect is mirrored by the feminine behavior, where they can't imagine you feel differently than they do and can't imagine that you think systemically.

So that means:
a) the feminine left can almost always understand each other.
b) The Masculine rights can sometimes understand the feminine left.
c) But the feminine left can never understand masculine rights.

WHich is exactly what we see in all aspects of life.

This is why I teach construction from first principles of the sciences: because everything turns out to be pretty simple if you think through rather than just 'feel' or 'intuit' differences in human behavior.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute