Marlieee

my love language is shit talk 🎵 🇺🇸

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

Most people think of philosophy as an abstraction that doesn't touch the real world, but they're wrong.

Most real world problems are philosophy problems, and most philosophy problems are "giving things the wrong names".

For example, if you call feral drug addicts "homeless people", then you can't solve the problem. You can only buy more houses for feral drug addicts to destroy.

In this case, we called the police and courts the "justice system".

But they're not. They can't be the justice system.

The function of a justice system would be to give everyone what they deserve.

Now, I deserve a hundred million dollars, a private Caribbean island, and a foot massage from Lauren Bacall in her prime, but I don't see the "justice" system lifting a finger to correct any of this, do you?

No, what we are supposed to have is a public safety system.

The function of a public safety system is to keep the public and their property safe.

If we understood that, we wouldn't care about what criminals deserve. We would care how likely they are to do it again. Or something worse.

In a public safety system, retardation and mental illness are not migrating factors. They are the opposite.

Because they mean that the criminal is more likely to pose a future threat.

We all understand this.

We all understand that the feral retard who stabs strangers on the train for being White and beautiful is a worse person than the man who murders his wife and her lover when he catches them in the act.

Not because of some abstract calculus of moral agency, of who is disadvantaged and who isn't, but because one is certainly going to murder more people if he can, while the other is a lot less likely to.

We've known for centuries, if not millennia, that it's the same small percentage of people doing all the robbing, raping, and murdering, over and over and over again.

And we've known for centuries that if you physically remove them from society, that's 100% effective in stopping them from doing it again.

The only hurdle is philosophical. Call it a "justice" system, and you have to argue endlessly about morality and redemption, and then some leftie thug-hugger weaponizes your own Christianity against you.

Call it public safety, and you confine the argument to likelihood of reoffense. Then you are in the realm of statistics. Which you can compute.

It all starts with naming things correctly, according to their actual nature.

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@jaytjaytx @BowTiedTrance @grok 🤣🤣🤣

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@Berrylyte1 It’s for your Aldi quarter, duh 🙄 🤣

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@jaytjaytx @TNDeptofHealth 📠

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@JesterJum I’d cut in a window.

Or alternatively maybe some floating shelves with some interesting lighting.

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@maliktheoracle This is fantastic 🤣

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@SydneyLWatson Please. Say things. 👀

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@SenWarren This is NOT the government’s job. I can’t believe we pay you with taxpayer money and tweeting this is how you’re using your time. Get out of the business of the private sector and go fix actual problems!

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@jaytjaytx Oh, that’s a great point. The amount of stagnation caused by the climate hoax due to over-regulation (not to mention fear) is probably crazy high. Of course we’ll never know, but how could it not be?!

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

This is a great analysis. The two things that stand out most for me-

1) The plastic recycling scam. People have spent an untold number of hours recycling plastic waste over the last several decades for essentially no benefit. We were told it was super critical, even of existential import, that we all “do our part” and reduce, reuse, recycle. Turns out, our efforts just get shipped over seas and dumped in a slum neighborhood or poured into the ocean. Additionally, we never really consider the amount of human productivity that has been wasted for nothing on ad campaigns, education, public awareness efforts, and actually carrying out the task of recycling. Those efforts, if we consider they could’ve been usefully redirected, are a significant loss to the world. I think it’s important to remember that not only did these people lie to you, they robbed you of a significant portion of your life that you can’t recover.

And 2) We don’t exist in a vacuum. Even if there had been an emergency climate crisis, our contribution to it (or reduction thereof) basically wouldn’t matter when we consider the activities of countries like China and India. Anything we were guilted into giving up was only a drop in the bucket compared to the opposing actions from other places in the world. Our efforts were basically pointless. I know people who stopped showering daily to conserve water, others who purchased new more efficient cars they really couldn’t afford, and still more who doubled their expenses choosing to buy “green” household products. They significantly changed their daily lives and made huge sacrifices based on a lie.

And yet, we’ll memory hole all of this and truth bias will have us fall victim to the same genre of hoax all over again the next time.

[jayte @jaytjaytx]

Climate change is the most dangerous idea in modern history. It sinks its talons deep into our psyches, preying on fear, authority, and ritual to turn anxiety into obedience.

First, climate change attacks us on the most persuasive pathway possible: fear. This is the literal end of the world. It's the scariest topic possible, and even worse, there’s no set deadline, no precisely defined consequence, just endless dread.

We’ve trained our children’s hearts to tremble at the future. We turn our ire at any who show indifference to climate change. We don’t want to bring more babies into a dying world. The comments of any popular tweet on this topic will show these fears, and more.

While fear is the most effective way of getting the idea into our heads, science and movies glued it to our brains. This appeal to authority was absolute: expert testimony from scientists coupled with striking Hollywood visuals cemented this idea that the world is going to end, and it's all our fault.

Enter the 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” This movie was shown in schools worldwide. Flooded cities, collapsing glaciers, and the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ ensured our children knew they were doomed. This movie’s credibility was entirely based on a nearly unanimous consensus of climate scientists.

That “consensus” was built with coercion: dissenting voices were not given a chance to express their views - people who spoke out against climate change were shunned, and there are famous examples of scientists losing their jobs, or funding, or being forced to resign for even questioning ‘the science’ (a violation of the very nature of science - science is supposed to be questioned!).

Big energy companies threw themselves behind this narrative, strengthening its credibility while 'coincidentally' increasing environmental regulations that would stifle competition, as smaller companies could not afford to compete.

Finally, rituals were forced, socially or legally, on people. The vast majority of recycling is dumped overseas. Useful recycling items like aluminum are automatically recovered by garbage companies. Carbon footprint calculators, created by companies like BP, shifted the idea of emissions from large firms to everyday people. Veganism grew popular as virtue against animal emissions. “Eco Mode” and “Smart Thermostats” make us pay more money for features that change nothing meaningful.

The specter of certain doom looms behind each recycling bin and pretty green leaf on your car’s dashboard. We are forced to think about this every day.

How did it get so bad? What changed, leading us to willingly accept such intrusion and inconvenience into our lives?

There's one big piece missing from my analysis, and I think astute readers may have picked up on it. Everything I'm discussing occurred from the 90s onward, but climate change has been discussed way back in the 50s. If the idea is so dangerous, why didn't it take off beforehand?

We simply weren't ready for it, yet.

Robert Cialdini @RobertCialdini writes in "Pre-suasion" about the importance of Privileged Moments. There was a potentially world-ending crisis that happened in the 80s. Something that required global attention and immediate action to combat.

I'm referring to CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer. A crisis that was successfully addressed, and a crisis that taught us that yes, humans really can mess with the world - and we can fix it. Once we'd been through the ozone layer stuff, we were ready to unquestionably accept the tremendous scam of climate change.

The damage this has done in dollars is immeasurable, but the real damage is in how we plan for the future. Imagine how many cribs this fucking scam has stolen from nurseries. The threat of a bad future for these would-be babies ensured that they had none at all.

Mr. Gates is correct to adjust his beliefs about this topic, and he will be hated and vilified for this. I only wish he went further.

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@theotricality Yeaaaah. It’s not some crazy achievement. Also, tons of kids that aren’t “iPad kids” still have a terrible time sitting for long periods. Every kid is different.

[jayte @jaytjaytx]

Climate change is the most dangerous idea in modern history. It sinks its talons deep into our psyches, preying on fear, authority, and ritual to turn anxiety into obedience.

First, climate change attacks us on the most persuasive pathway possible: fear. This is the literal end of the world. It's the scariest topic possible, and even worse, there’s no set deadline, no precisely defined consequence, just endless dread.

We’ve trained our children’s hearts to tremble at the future. We turn our ire at any who show indifference to climate change. We don’t want to bring more babies into a dying world. The comments of any popular tweet on this topic will show these fears, and more.

While fear is the most effective way of getting the idea into our heads, science and movies glued it to our brains. This appeal to authority was absolute: expert testimony from scientists coupled with striking Hollywood visuals cemented this idea that the world is going to end, and it's all our fault.

Enter the 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” This movie was shown in schools worldwide. Flooded cities, collapsing glaciers, and the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ ensured our children knew they were doomed. This movie’s credibility was entirely based on a nearly unanimous consensus of climate scientists.

That “consensus” was built with coercion: dissenting voices were not given a chance to express their views - people who spoke out against climate change were shunned, and there are famous examples of scientists losing their jobs, or funding, or being forced to resign for even questioning ‘the science’ (a violation of the very nature of science - science is supposed to be questioned!).

Big energy companies threw themselves behind this narrative, strengthening its credibility while 'coincidentally' increasing environmental regulations that would stifle competition, as smaller companies could not afford to compete.

Finally, rituals were forced, socially or legally, on people. The vast majority of recycling is dumped overseas. Useful recycling items like aluminum are automatically recovered by garbage companies. Carbon footprint calculators, created by companies like BP, shifted the idea of emissions from large firms to everyday people. Veganism grew popular as virtue against animal emissions. “Eco Mode” and “Smart Thermostats” make us pay more money for features that change nothing meaningful.

The specter of certain doom looms behind each recycling bin and pretty green leaf on your car’s dashboard. We are forced to think about this every day.

How did it get so bad? What changed, leading us to willingly accept such intrusion and inconvenience into our lives?

There's one big piece missing from my analysis, and I think astute readers may have picked up on it. Everything I'm discussing occurred from the 90s onward, but climate change has been discussed way back in the 50s. If the idea is so dangerous, why didn't it take off beforehand?

We simply weren't ready for it, yet.

Robert Cialdini @RobertCialdini writes in "Pre-suasion" about the importance of Privileged Moments. There was a potentially world-ending crisis that happened in the 80s. Something that required global attention and immediate action to combat.

I'm referring to CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer. A crisis that was successfully addressed, and a crisis that taught us that yes, humans really can mess with the world - and we can fix it. Once we'd been through the ozone layer stuff, we were ready to unquestionably accept the tremendous scam of climate change.

The damage this has done in dollars is immeasurable, but the real damage is in how we plan for the future. Imagine how many cribs this fucking scam has stolen from nurseries. The threat of a bad future for these would-be babies ensured that they had none at all.

Mr. Gates is correct to adjust his beliefs about this topic, and he will be hated and vilified for this. I only wish he went further.

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@CrackerBarrel I love it here. 🤣

[Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays]

World‘s stupidest question

[Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays]

Once you realize all of our data about anything important is fake or misleading, this sort of fossilized opinion looks extra weak.

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

@em_Lazzy I want to be able to immediately slam closed the back hatch of my car, instead of waiting for the slow automatic closure.

[Sentient Felicity (Kate R.) @AlaskanKate]

Trying to explain Le Creuset fixation to a man by saying it's the dish version of having all Milwaukee power tools instead of buying them at, like, Harbor Freight. I hope I did this metaphor correctly.

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

People will just stop going to college if they’ll come out making $35k. They can make more than that working at a gas station. College is expensive and takes 4 years of your life. It doesn’t make sense if you can’t come out of it with a salary you can at least live independently on. But you know that. This is just more of the “why don’t you do what I did and take an option that isn’t available to you in a world that doesn’t exist anymore” nonsense.

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

This is so cute 🥰

[Marlieee @marlieee__]

This feels like the right question.

[.. @theprexi]

@Jason The real bottleneck won’t be labor or energy, it’ll be purpose. Once everything works, what do people work for?