Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


Twitter these days is a joy to see. Liberals crying and moaning. And our people gloating and keeping up the pressure. Never let down people. In a war initiative is everything. Never give the enemy any breathing time. Break their morale.

Some examples.

And then of course there's stuff like this:

The smarter leftists are deep in self-reflection, constantly wondering "how did I get this wrong? How did we all miss this?".

I thought a new slogan to say to these people.

Check Your Signaling.

Yes, Shlomo. You lost your bets because you were busy signaling. Every time you say something stupid we'll be there to tell you: Check your signaling. Because we know. We know you're full of shit. And the thing is, we know you know it too. You're a smart guy. You just need somebody to remind you. To shame you on your fawning to the elite. To shame you on your greedy status-seeking. To shame you on your signaling.

The Left is getting ready to spend 8 long years signaling how "people are afraid", shitting on Trump day and night signaling how they are the protectors of blacks, mexicans, sexual deviants and every kind of fucked up people. They are not doing this because of any belief they hold. They are doing this because they want status. They signal holiness in order to make money and get attractive mates. That wouldn't matter if that's all they did; but then every once in a while they get in a position of power and they have to make good on their signaling by implementing leftist policies; leftist policies that are harmful to everyone; even themselves. Do white leftists really benefit from all the leftist policies of the last 50 years? Of course not! They are wrecking Western civilization as a whole. Matt Yglesias got beat up by black thugs and sent to a hospital. Plenty of leftist women have been raped and assaulted. Look at Germany! They don't do it because it's good for them long term. They do it because it makes them look good short-term.

Behavioral economics is some academic claptrap that leftists came up with to justify arbitrary government intervention. The gist is that humans are stupid, full of biases, and government needs to help them for their own good. And you know, they have a point. Humans have a bias to signal holiness, even when its harmful for them. Well, we, out of charity and love for humanity, will help them out of it. We will help them Check their Signaling, making them shut up, so that they don't hurt themselves down the line.

Remember, this is very important. Don't think it's just talk. Talk is very important. Stop the signaling and soon enough they'll stop their evil-doing. Call them out. Every single time.



Leave a Reply
  • You know, the thing about boiling human behavior down to self interest is that you can just keep moving the goal post as you want to support whatever you want. It is a rhetorical device.

    Someone does something wildly self harming - well it is for short term benefit, not long term, or long term benefit, not short term, or because it helps their cousins (as per the seflish gene,) or it helps their national gene pool etc. You get the idea.

      • That's a delicate philosophical point. "Purpose" is usually reserved for anticipated effects of intentional activity, and is used as an active verb for this reason. Animal behavior has certain effects which are beneficial to the survival of the individual or group. To what extent can animal behavior be described as intentional? Difficult to say. Remember ethology and fixed action patterns. On the other hand, what with the new data on human cognition that is coming in, it becomes harder to support the notion that our motivation and intention mechanisms fundamentally differ from other higher mammals, though our mechanisms have much more information to act upon. So I'm going to sidestep this question and instead remark that "self-interest" is indeed a rather squishy concept. Were the million Britons who died at the Somme motivated by self-interest? It is certainly possible to explain their behavior by reference to status with local peer group etc., but at that point "self-interest" loses all explanatory power. It does serve as an indispensable reminder to avoid uncritically taking words and actions at face value.

          • To designate humans as mere animals and to attempt to devolve all considerations to mechanistic forces is precisely the liberal project. This is what Hobbes was doing with his theory. It is again a rhetorical device not supportable or realistic. People have just been reinventing the same crap for 400 years now. Self interest can just be reorientated to where you want it - And bingo! I am correct! Sure. As for rhetoric, firstly, signaling is bullshit on stilts. Secondly, yes rhetoric has a place, but if you buy into your own rhetorical ploys and substitute them for reality, then you are a fool.

            • Was the Qoheleth part of "the liberal project" when he designated humans as mere animals?

              "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other. Yea, they have all one breath, so that man hath no preeminence above a beast, for all is vanity." (Ecclesiastes)

              And such is both supportable and realistic. See: "The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life After Death." (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015)

        • shows 3010 results for "evolutionary purpose" (with the quotes,) so spandrell's use of the word is acceptable shorthand, (unless he wants to get published in Nature.) You are correct about the research on human cognition; Thomas Metzinger work on the "myth of the self" has greatly interested me.

          Life itself is, like chemistry, is a subset of physics. Its origins may well be explained by the fourth law of thermodynamics called the “Maximum Power Principle”(MPP.) Jeremy England at MIT is at the forefront of this research today, building on the work of Howard Odum and Alfred Lotka. Jay Hanson has put together an accessible essay on the subject here:

            • Seems like you're in over your head, as are most people with physics. Do you really think life originated outside the laws of thermodynamics?

              • Maybe "crackpottery" was just a little bit too strong and "arrogant handwavy theories" would be nearer the mark. Life originated outside the laws of thermodynamics no more than convection cells in a cup of coffee originate outside the laws of thermodynamics, but non-equilibrium thermodynamics is only really mathematically tractable in linear, close-to-equilibrium and/or special cases. We have nothing close to a general theory, and I am far from the only physicist to doubt there can be one. Prigogine, who got a Nobel in chemistry for his work on the subject, introduced the principle of minimum entropy production, but he himself recognized that outside the linear, close-to-equilibrium regime that principle does not work. You get path dependence, hysteresis and all sorts of messy effects. I understand where those MPP guys are coming from — if there is a usable source of food or energy in an ecosystem it tends to get used, and used in the most efficient way because inefficient users tend to get outcompeted by more efficient users — but to elevate this rule of thumb to the dignity of a law of thermodynamics is just silly.

              • Keep backtracking.

                The maximum power principle predicts the outcomes of two-species competition experiments

              • That's exactly the case I wrote in my comment above, and it's really a rather obvious corollary of natural selection, so stuff it. Fourth law of thermodynamics! Pfui.

      • If alt-righters want the nice white ladies of the world to believe crime stats, they need to stop peppering their presentation of said facts with words like "nigger" or "fucking Jews." They would instead take a cue from people like Amy Wax or Steven Pinker who have risen to Ivy League professorships while spouting inconvenient facts. Masters of rhetoric, both.

        • President Obama endorsed Larry Wilmore's use of the Latin word for black at the 2016 White House Correspondent's Dinner, at which the nice white ladies and fucking Jews screamed with delight.

  • "Check your signalling" is brilliant. I intend to use it. Right now I am feeling like any invocation of "check your privilege" should be immediately met with it.

  • I don't agree with the alt-right, and I have read your blog mostly for the interesting historical posts, and the very occasional interesting critiques of progressivism.

    And I have to say, this post disappoints me. You are smarter than this! You are falling into all of the same intellectual traps that progressives do; right now you are literally no better at arguing than the leftists that you hate.

    Basically, your theory of mind is shit. Its just so easy to think that your enemies do things for stupid reasons like signalling. Its so powerful! Everything is signalling! In fact, its too powerful. Its like when conspiracy theorists say "they must have been in on it too!". That can be applied to literally every piece of evidence against a conspiracy theory. Similarly, someone does something you don't agree with, and you can say "they are just saying that to signal piety". It has no counter. It could apply to literally everything I can think of. And that's why I know its bullshit.

    So come on, man. Stop this shit. Use a bit of intellectual rigor. And the most basic bit of intellectual rigor is believing that your enemies actually believe most of what they say that do. If you don't believe that, well, you aren't a serious intellectual, like you seem to think you are. I guess I expected too much from you.

    • Rhetoric is important. And I don't see how it follows that I must assume my opponents are rigorous and believe what they say. They come up with unfalsifiable crap all the time that makes it exhausting when not impossible to argue with them.

      Not that it isn't important to disprove many of their points, but as you deplore I am more interested in rhetoric these days. Trump is too, and he's doing nicely isn't he. I'd also rather win than be right at this stage.

      • If you don't care about intellectual rigor, there is not a lot I can say. Sure, winning is everything, and I don't dispute that the alt-right is winning right now. So I guess I could shut up and wait four years, and see if there is anything left of this country worth salvaging at that point. On the other hand... it could still be fun to argue about shit? Let's not lie, arguing is one of the most fun things there is in this fucked up world.

        So, let's begin. You do not have to assume all your opponents are rigorous, but I think you have to assume some of your opponents are rigorous. If you don't, you are basically saying "I am so right, that I don't even have to defend my point of view. It is self evident." That's pretty arrogant. So I guess I would ask, lets look at the political spectrum. Who do you view as valid viewpoints to critique your own? Fascists? Classical liberals? Anarchists? An-caps? Social Democrats? Monarchists? Libertarians? Whatever you say will give me some sort of basis to critique you.

        More generally, you rage against "unfalsifiable crap" that progressives come up with. Ok, fair enough, this happens fairly often. But there are a lot of other viewpoints opposed to the alt-right other than progressivism (unless you are defining everything not in the alt-right as progressivism, which is, frankly, extremely dumb). To dismiss all of those as "signalling" seems like the same kind of unfalsifiable crap you are railing against.

        • Precisely because I care about intellectual rigor I have long abandoned any attempt at arguing with liberals or anyone with a stated position in the "political spectrum". Because once you start digging a bit; all you find is that they're full of shit, they know nothing about what they talk about, and all they do is argue because they think arguing is fun. Like you.

          And you know why arguing is fun? Because fighting is fun; because people like to win and raise their status over others. This is why you're picking up fights with me, saying my theory of mind is wrong even though you don't even have one and I know 1000x more than you do about the topic.

          What do you want to talk about policy? Economics? Economic arguments are based on a completely arcane set of arguments which don't even make sense. Look at Arnold Kling. Macroeconomics is crap. Psychology is crap. Global warming is crap. Linguistics is utter and complete crap. There are basic epistemological problems which we have known for centuries but we ignore because people like you just can't stop arguing, because it's fun. Well, I think it's boring.

          My contribution to debate is to come up with the only epistemologically sound methodology: history. You have an idea? Let's look if it's been done in the past. I can do that. But I won't play with you arguing about Monarchism and Libertarianism or Anarchism because all those are status plays with little to none factual content. I guess you're young; I was young too, and I had fun arguing about crap which I knew little about with people who knew even less than I did. But now I know it's pointless.

          Of course if you have some small, well-defined point you want to make, I'll be happy to discuss it. But I won't engage in wholesale attacks of any political group; that's just not a productive game. The better way to engage him is pointing out how little they know. When people around here started to rally around monarchism I was the first to point out how empty they were.

          Honestly, do you really think all those people, that Yudkowsky "believed" that Hillary would won because they had defined knowledge about it? They were full of shit.

          • Webster's Dictionary should have a screen-cap of this comment next to its entry for 'wisdom'.

          • "Check Your Signaling". I love this and may use it sometime.

            You're reply to is BRST extremely good.

            "...Macroeconomics is crap. Psychology is crap. Global warming is crap. Linguistics is utter and complete crap. There are basic epistemological problems which we have known for centuries..."

            Here's another. Physics is crap. No I'm not a theoretical physicist but I do know that the speed of light is NOT a constant and the Michelson and Morley experiment did NOT show the speed of light the same parallel and perpendicular to the Earth's travel. It's also been tested many, many times and there's the same results but in all the textbooks they say there's zero difference. What they found was it was not the value they expected. It was much lower. I've read a copy of the report myself. The difference was stated in the back. I read about this in an article by G. Harry Stine the former Science Fact editor of Analog SciFi and Sci Fact magazine.

            • Here's another. Geography is crap. No I'm not a geographer but I do know that the Earth is hollow inside. Multiple expeditions and even space station footage show that there is a north polar opening but in all the textbooks they say there isn't any. I've seen the pictures myself. I read about it in a web site, so it must be true.

              • "...I read about it in a web site, so it must be true..."

                No this is from like back before the internet. I've seen the the Michelson and Morley paper to check it because it seemed so bizarre. There were test done by two other physicist. I don't have their names handy. One did so over several years using different materials for tunnels to test in. The difference changed with the conjunction of the planets. Another at the naval observatory got the same results later. The last test of this showed a null result but it was done in a mine. The book was I believe


                Faster than Light. 1980. (In Destinies: February-March 1980 )

                I think I still have it. If you really are interested I'll try to find it so you can look up the references. I have way too many books but I might know where it is. The Michelson and Morley paper has the difference at the end of the paper. I looked up the paper on wikipedia and damn if they don't have the second guys name and his results. They say that the results were null but that's not what he found.

                Dayton Miller from 1902 to 1904,"...Miller worked on increasingly larger interferometers, culminating in one with a 32-meter (105 ft) (effective) arm length that he tried at various sites, including on top of a mountain at the Mount Wilson Observatory. To avoid the possibility of the aether wind being blocked by solid walls, his mountaintop observations used a special shed with thin walls, mainly of canvas. From noisy, irregular data, he consistently extracted a small positive signal that varied with each rotation of the device, with the sidereal day, and on a yearly basis. His measurements in the 1920s amounted to approximately 10 km/s (6.2 mi/s) instead of the nearly 30 km/s (18.6 mi/s) expected from the Earth's orbital motion alone..."

                The important point is he and Michelson found a difference and they were not able to refute Miller until he was dead. He was not some hack. There was no null result. Other test were not set up the same. One was in "arms forged from pressed quartz". So we can say there is no difference in a solid but it's not the same.


                Picture of Chinese pyramids. :)

                Here's another interesting oddity. This guy has a flywheel connected to a geared rack such that when the rack hits something it rapidly spins the flywheel.


                He has videos where he runs a car into one of these bumpers at a high speed and the driver and the car are fine. I think it's analogous to Professor Laithwaites gyroscopes.


                I don't think these things are explained well by the physics we have today. Stine has done a work on a theory where "inertia waves????" are given off by non steady state acceleration or accelerating accelerated objects. This also happens with rail guns which do not show an equal and opposite reaction to the mass fired.


                There's a lot of weird stuff like this. There's also a lot of BS on the web but there's plenty that people refuse to look at because...well just because.

              • There sure is a lot of weird stuff, and most of it is complete crap. With Miller's experiments, notice that he was the only one who was able to consistently extract a small positive signal from noisy, irregular data. That's very often a clue that the person in question is fooling himself in some non-obvious way, and once one becomes invested in a particular result sunk costs kick in and it is difficult to retreat, the more so if one had publicly announced the astonishing result and staked one's reputation. Well-attested examples are plenty. See Martian canals and N-rays for very old, polywater and cold fusion for less old, and STAP cells for recent. Sometimes whole theoretical fields go bonkers (think of string theory). This is less apt to happen with fundamental experimental results in our days because of the sheer amount of high technology dependent on them being correct. For instance, if speed of light really did have all those daily and yearly variations, microwave, satellite communications and GPS would all be noticeably (now that we have atomic clocks) affected and high-frequency traders would be busy developing trading schemes based on periodic lag difference from NY to Tokyo and vice-versa, and/or lobbying for such schemes to be made illegal. There are thousands and thousands of such connections all intertwined together in a way difficult to appreciate or even imagine if you're an amateur (or, sometimes, even a narrow specialist), just as it is difficult for creationist amateurs to appreciate or even imagine the sheer stupendous volume of paleontological data and work behind the theory of evolution. Gyroscopes are perfectly explained by ordinary classical mechanics and have been since XIX century. There is nothing whatsoever mysterious about those videos. Notice that the guy with the flywheel on rod doesn't try to stop it from precessing; if he tried that, it would have swung downwards and the experiment would be over. I hadn't heard of Prof. Laithwaithe before, but from a cursory look his stuff is essentially the same as Russian "inertoids", which are more or less ingenious variations on a purported reactionless motor which under certain conditions appears to work because of friction (in Russian, Google Translate does a passable job -- highly recommended). Russian inertoidists are persuasive and importunate, so public facepalms occasionally happen -- they cajoled a Russian general, who seems to be a fan of this sort of crap, into putting a "reactionless drive" onto a satellite and turned it on when the satellite was in orbit, to no effect of course. Don't mistake me, I'd like faster-than-light travel to be possible just as much as the next geek weaned on hard SF, but as a physicist I am quite convinced that it is physically impossible.

              • There’s also a lot of BS on the web but there’s plenty that people refuse to look at because…well just because.
                PS: specialists who are worth their money usually refuse to look at such stuff because it is such a complete waste of time, and it is often difficult to explain precisely why the purported device appears to work, or convince the inventor that he's wrong. He's more apt to become convinced that you're trying to suppress and/or steal his invention and not infrequently ugly personal interactions result. One of my professors used to help out with letters to the editor at a Soviet analogue of "Scientific American" as a voluntary-compulsory public service, and he had to deal with people claiming to have proven that quantum mechanics is wrong, or developed new theories of gravity, or other such crap. Some of them claimed to rely on Lenin's works to get their letters published, the idea being that the editor would not want to say Lenin was wrong on anything. Nevertheless, some people are starting to realize a business opportunity and will debate or assist over Skype at an hourly rate -- I think I saw this at Marginal Revolution a couple of months ago, can't find the link now.

              • "...With Miller’s experiments, notice that he was the only one who was able to consistently extract a small positive signal from noisy, irregular data..."

                That's not true. After Miller someone else used more accurate equipment and got the same results. I think it was at the Naval laboratory and I believe they used microwaves.

                "...For instance, if speed of light really did have all those daily and yearly variations, microwave, satellite communications and GPS would all be noticeably (now that we have atomic clocks) affected and high-frequency traders would be busy developing trading schemes based on periodic lag difference from NY to Tokyo..."

                Very, very, very good argument. For microwave and satellite communications I don't think it would be noticed. The difference is small and the change would go right through whatever bandpass filter they have. Looking at the GPS I admit much more troublesome. They add all kinds of corrections. Atmosphere, relativity and Sagnac effect to GPS. I admit defeat on the GPS argument. However a bit of doubt remains. The GPS satellites used for measurement on the ground are using the closest ones so that drastically reduces the error to where it wouldn't be noticed by the receiver. Could the error correction they add for relativistic effects be cancelling the effects from differences in speed of light. They correct the error but mistake where it comes from? I have doubts but I do publicly admit defeat in this case concerning GPS as at this time I can't explain it.

                "...Martian canals and N-rays for very old, polywater...","stick-slip"

                Yes I've heard of all those. As for Prof. Laithwaithe, "...Notice that the guy with the flywheel on rod doesn’t try to stop it from precessing; if he tried that, it would have swung downwards and the experiment would be over..."

                Maybe I should have shown the gyro video of Prof. Laithwaithe but the one I posted was clearer. The point is he was an small old Man and was not capable of pushing the gyro over his head. 40 lbs. About like a five gallon bucket of water. Can you easily with no strain pick up a five gallon bucket of water over your head? What holds up the gyroscope? If you say precession then you're saying that the gyroscope is, by virtue of it's precession, pushing against the "inertial" frame of the universe. Let me be precise. Laithwaithe is not holding all the weight of the gyroscope up. Here's a video where they explain that the "perceived" weight goes down and it shows Prof. Laithwaithe with the same type and weight apparatus. My point is that the Prof. would not be able to lift 40 lbs. over his head without strain. The guy in the video with no spinning could barely do so but has no problem with the gyroscope spinning. I suggest that spinning masses, that are moved or accelerated create a type of directional inertia drive. I got this from Stine who with another physicist came up with this from looking at another weird spinning contraption called the Dean drive.


                I fully admit I'm not as smart as Candide III, spandrell and many others but there does seem to be some discrepancy in a lot of different gyroscope type machines. Also the Lagiewka Bumper and the rail gun which for some reason doesn't have the same force pushing it backwards as the force going out of the rails. Physicists look at these things and say,"precession" while ignoring how an old Man picks up five gallons of water over his head with little strain. There's also this. A EM drive that doesn't release anything for propulsion.


                Here's what Davis and Stine came up with to explain the mechanical gyroscope abnormalities. Davis Mechanics.


              • That’s not true. After Miller someone else used more accurate equipment and got the same results. I think it was at the Naval laboratory and I believe they used microwaves.
                Okay. Somebody else besides Pons and Fleischman claimed to have reproduced cold fusion, too. There were dozens of other MM-type experiments that found no variation, right into the 2000's, and (this is related to my microwave claim) International Atomic Time is actually a constantly-running MM experiment, at least since the 1970's. A difference in 10 km/s in the speed of light would result in a few microseconds' worth of periodic lag on intercontinental satellite links. With atomic clocks, a microsecond would be as obvious as a punch in the face. They have to correct for varying altitude, for heaven's sake!
                another weird spinning contraption called the Dean drive
                I again advise you to read that Russian article with Google Translate. The author was actually originally inspired by the Dean device, whatever it is.
                If you say precession then you’re saying that the gyroscope is, by virtue of it’s precession, pushing against the “inertial” frame of the universe.
                No, I'm not saying that. The video you just posted, featuring Prof. Laithwaithe, actually explains what happens after the old film cut-in. Since that explanation obviously didn't suffice for you, here's mine. Notice the old prof didn't have any trouble holding the thing near the flywheel -- he can support its weight all right, 10 kilos is not so much. The main problem with lifting it over your head holding it by the end of the handle is applying enough momentum with your hand to keep it horizontal, and when it's spinning you don't have to apply that, you only have to let it precess. Why? Look at the picture (excuse my paint madskillz).

                Replace the flywheel with a ring for simplicity. When the ring is spinning on its axis, its elements always have linear velocities in the vertical plane that contains the ring, because the ring is rigid (if they didn't it would be flying apart instead of staying in one piece). Elements above the horizontal plane containing the axis move away from us and those below move towards us. When the ring precesses (the reason is not important for the moment) the vertical plane containing the ring rotates around the vertical axis. Since the ring is rigid, the velocities of its elements must change direction as shown. But velocities don't change by themselves (Newton's 2nd law). There must be a momentum applied to the ring to accelerate it around the axis orthogonal to the ring's axis of spin and to the axis of precession, and it is proportional to the ring's spin rate and to the rate of precession. (You apply this momentum when you turn a spinning bicycle wheel by the axes.) In this case, you apply this momentum at the other end of the handle -- you must be pushing the ring downwards to keep it precessing. Now if we add gravity, you must also be pushing the ring upwards to keep it from swinging down, regardless of whether it's spinning or not (note that this is distinct from keeping it from falling, you have to do that anyway -- consider what will happen if you replace your hand with a fixed swivel). In other words, you must also apply a momentum counteracting the momentum of the force of gravity on the ring's center of mass. If the precession direction is right and its rate is just big enough, the two momenta you must apply cancel and the flywheel "feels light as a feather". You still have to support its weight, but you don't have to keep it from swinging downwards. To look at it from a slightly different perspective, the momentum of the pair of forces "gravity on ring's center of mass (downwards)--your hand (upwards)" changes the ring elements' velocities in exactly the same way whether it's spinning or no. If it isn't (imagine there are no long red arrows on the picture), this momentum would be flipping the ring over (and the contact force of the handle would pull it towards your hand to keep it on the handle). If the ring is spinning, the same small changes of velocity produced by the momentum add to the velocities due to spin, and the compound effect is to rotate the plane containing the ring around the vertical axis instead of flipping it over. Since the ring is attached to the handle, contact forces kick in again and make it move perpendicular to the handle, so that its plane rotates and it stays on the end of the handle.

              • Thank you very Candide III. Excellent explanation of the gyroscope. I get it. It has baffled me for a while. I very much appreciate your patience. I'm going to put your explanation in my Dean drive folder.

                I multiplied out the difference in the GPS signal at 10,000 Km's, one way at Orbital height 20,180 km and got 3.24 micro Seconds so I concede you have crushed my pseudo science and taught me a valuable lesson in physics. Much appreciation.(No snark I really mean this).

                I'm still going to keep my eye out for that hole in the North pole that leads to the hollow Earth in Google Earth though. I think that's where the FED put all our gold. :)

            • Chemistry is crap! I have it on good authority that Wöhler failed to synthesize urea and pissed in his test tubes! That's why we have the antibiotics crisis, we can't synthesize organic substances and we've ran out of natural fungi to extract penicillin out of! History is crap! All documents older than X-XI c. are forgeries, antique sculptures are Renaissance forgeries and ancient Chinese annals are bad later translations from European languages! There were never any Ancient Egyptians -- the Giza complex was built by the Atlanteans because some hieroglyphs look like helicopters, the Sphinx has signs of water erosion and the latitude of the Great Pyramid matches the speed of light to five decimal places!.. Come to think of it, that last fact means the conventional story of the Michelson-Morley experiment must be right after all, because there is no way an ancient supercivilization would not know that the speed of light is not constant. Oops!

        • Leftism largely roots itself from ideology, while the alt-right uses a version of reality. And ultimately, as we've discovered, sound-bites and memes matter more than anything else. For every #maga, there was Hillary support insisting on the importance of "breaking the glass ceiling."

          There may have been a time and place for intellectual rigor, but it doesn't matter so as long as victory these days is defined by outshouting the enemy.

    • Thermodynamics, too, can be applied to almost anything. Is it therefore bullshit? I'm going to defer to our host on signaling, though, and confine myself to remarking that in this particular corner of the alt-right we don't really doubt that progressives actually believe most of what they say and think. Moldbug used to repeat that most people are quite sincere in their views and that insincerity cannot be organized on a non-trivial scale. Progressives don't always act in accordance to what they say, though, witness the perennial subject of "good schools" and empirical residence patterns. I don't take this as evidence of hypocrisy, the mind being a complicated thing, but they do seem to understand at some level the realities which they are vigorously denying. And this is where signaling comes in.

      • It is extremely questionable to apply the standards of theoretical physics arguments to society. In fact, the entire reason you don't believe in social science and psychology is because they don't have the same level of rigor as theoretical physics.

        But thermodynamics: at a basic level it is well understood, but that cannot be applied to almost anything. The concepts which can be applied to almost anything - entropy, etc - are not well understood. For example, since physicists do not have a theory of quantum gravity, the entropy of black holes is not well understood. I mean, there are persuasive arguments linking entropy to the surface area of the event horizon. However, how this relates to the quantum theory is unknown since string theory, or some equivalent, is not yet well supported.

        I actually agree with much of what you are saying about progressives. Sure, they are hypocrites; I never argued otherwise. What I am arguing against is dismissing minorities who say they are afraid. I have no reason to disbelieve such a thing. After all, there have been racist attacks on minorities since Trump's election. Even by your low standards, I think spray painting swastikas is meaningful. I think chanting "Cotton Picker, You're a Nigger, Heil Hitler" is meaningful. Maybe you are thinking "fuck those non-white people" but like... they have a reason to be afraid! It is not irrational!

        • Oh come on. For every "Mexicans go home" there's been 100 attacks on whites. Famous people calling for our extermination. Give me a fucking break. You believe also women saying that they are constantly afraid they are going to be raped?

          • I don't believe you, and I don't think you are capable of assembling the data to support your point. Either way, I'm going to bed, and I'll take this up tomorrow, if I find it interesting in the morning.

            • As liberals say, this is our "lived experience." The facts are that I know far more fear and actual oppression from the Left than vice versa.

              So you can forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for those who would destroy me and my family for disagreeing with them. The world's gotten pretty heavily polarized, but if that's the way it has to be, I'll rather win than lose.

          • Is anybody out there keeping an honest count of these incidents that could be used as a reference? Ideally, including the stuff during the campaign.

            Progressives up here remain wedded to their narrative that they have all the facts and reason on side and that violence is a "Trump supporter" activity.

            Just curious if there is a good resource on anyone's site. The lack of one won't tarnish my joy.

        • Oh come on, I didn't mean speculative stuff like black holes and quantum gravity. Discussing the application of thermodynamics to these is an engrossing exercise, but about as useful as discussing the application of game theory to alien invasion. I should have qualified my statement, e.g. "almost anything practically relevant".

          As for hypocrisy, I made a point above that I don't make the charge of hypocrisy. It merely leads to holiness spirals. As for racist attacks on minorities, I would be cautious of accepting reports of such at face value in view of numerous hoaxes perpetrated on various campuses with much less provocation than Trump's election, not to mention the Rolling Stone debacle. Anyway Trump's explicit message to any such attackers in CBS 60 minutes interview was "stop it". He repeated it three times, too. And if you're trying to be objective you have to mention the attacks on Trump supporters on the part of progressives. As for dismissing fearful minorities, where did I do that? Sure they have a reason to be afraid, having had the unquestioned upper hand in any conflict short of outright criminality and suddenly finding their position insecure, but I submit that they are projecting. They would have no mercy on their enemies had they found them in their power. As it is, they conveniently forget that Trump's power is much more limited than many in alt-right would like to think, and behave as if St. Bartholomew's Day was in the offing because fear is such a useful tool of agitation and organization. Also they have more than enough safety-pin types to console them and ally with them and feed them comfort foods.

          • They are absolutely projecting. Looking at their threats in comparison to anything that we have said. Its disgusting and ignorable only in the sense of how hollow it is.

        • You realize that many of us here are Asian, right?

          For every "hate crime", there is far more being inflicted upon any of us who have supported Trump. Right-wing hate crime is socially rejected, left-wing hate crime is legitimized so you will see a lot more about it.

          So yeah, I'll dismiss the babies who say that they are afraid. Deal with it. If nothing else, its the same that we here on the right have been feeling forever.

        • "...It is extremely questionable to apply the standards of theoretical physics arguments to society..."

          Gas laws! Gas laws! With wildly varying partial pressures.

  • One is acquainted with people at work or wherever of whom one thinks, "I wish he were in charge." The people about whom one thinks this presumably share some features; call them "Natural Rulers." The only non-signalling political activity would be activity whose goal is to ensure that the Natural Rulers rule. Maybe at different times and in different places different political institutions are most likely to ensure that Natural Rulers rule. Sometimes monarchy is likeliest to have this result, sometimes parliaments of gentlemen, and so forth.

  • Not only have we won; not only have we won fairly; not only have we won according to their rules; we have won while, according to all their best theories, it was impossible for us to do so ! Now they must suffer power loss, morale loss, legitimacy loss, but most importantly a philosphical loss. Their best theories have been proven wrong in the most spectacular way, and they will need some time to figure out exactly why. In the meantime their useful idiots are running in rounds like headless chickens, looking like absolute fools. I have never seen a rekt of this magnitude. What a time to be alive !

    • It was a close thing. But we haven't yet crushed the vipers. More work must be done and I do think this is the time for us to organize and push ourselves to have a chance at genuine victory.

  • I don't think you can stop their signalling. It is an instinctual drive. But I do think you can change the sacred values they signal for.

  • Hakubun Shimomura ordered to stop teaching humanities and social sciences in universities about a year ago.

    What was the real reason for this move? Has the number of programs in humanities and social sciences dropped now? Are these subjects pozzed in Japan?

    Also, what is your impression of Tokyo and Tokyo University?

    • He ordered to shut down or downsize grad school humanities departments in public universities, not undergrad.

      There's been a lot of speculation, but the most reliable I've heard is that private universities mostly get the kind of dumb girls who study humanities so they got the government to close down their cheaper public competition.

      It's all pretty pozzed, but there's a 10 year delay or so. Plenty of Marxist sociologists and the like. Gender and race stuff was getting increasingly popular; hopefully the lack of funding will kill that off.

      Tokyo University is... well the best university in the country. What do you want to know in particular?

      • Undergrad too if I read the primary source right (my bold):

        The order also mandates closure or merger of low-quality law schools (where bar exam pass rate is very low or not enough applicants). However, this same order also mandates increases in researcher diversity by proactively recruiting women, young people and foreigners:
        and changes in admission policy which I can't make out what it comes out as:
        So it seems to be a rather mixed bag.

              • I see. The comment to that post is good. I believe Japan had caught the "put everybody through college" bug hard and now there are much too many substandard universities graduating glorified high school students, so maybe this is part of an effort to restrain the spiral by cutting away at funding. At least the government is mandating what to cut first, though I don't understand what's the idea behind cutting the humanities departments and simultaneously increasing researcher diversity. Also, private universities are not affected, e.g. the long-time liberal nest of Waseda is private.

      • How much do people in Tokyo differ from the rest of Japanese? Is it true that men there are immature, and there is something off about young women, as if they are calculating emotion-imitating robots?

        Is it a good idea for a white male in his mid-twenties to live in Tokyo?

        How hard is it to find a good white (preferably Russian) wife there?

  • Hey, spandrell, your thoughts about this?

    • What the hell is his point? That Chinese people are getting their wealth out of the country as a hedge against political instability is true. That there is a massive bubble is true. That the government is trying to hunt down those people is true too.

      But if that is true, the whole conspiracy of "neocolonial ambitions" doesn't make any sense. The government doesn't want this to happen. It doesn't like this a lot. Chinese emigration to Africa has stagnated for almost a decade. China is not and has never been an aggressive power. Chinese government is about internal control; for millennia it forbid its citizens from leaving the country on penalty of death. I'm sure they'd like to reinstate that policy. And as you can see, for good reason.

  • 5 pingbacks