The tone of your words is so pleasant. It differs so much to me from some of the other things I've read here (posted by you).
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 9:01 AM Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > > > How does this subject land for you? What feelings are you trying to > > get across with it? > > It lands as true, in many ways - in fact in all ways that I am able to > discern, and this is in where I've read the whole thing, and listened to the > Jordan Peterson video. > > And so I have to recommend Jordan Peterson again - some of JP's words have > not entirely "gelled" for me, but the majority of what he says resonates > really well for me, and to me is "spot on". So I can't recommend him > enough... It's hard for me to dedicate a lot of time to listening to extensive things when it is so hard for me to produce work. I need my time to try to work. > > I'm actually not trying to get any feelings across - I'm hoping that some > concepts get across to people, which they may not have thought about before. > > Without understand the problems and the causes of our problems, what hope > have we to fix those problems? Yes! Completely! Similarly, don't we need to consider the arguments of all sides, when there are disagreements? > So fundamentally I am attempting to assist the conversation generally, for > everybody. And I think this is one of the most powerful things we can do. > > > > I expect the content to be pushing divisive politics. > > No - at least not from my perspective, not at all. It's about concepts, > understanding, perceiving that which we have not seen before - and similarly, > and perhaps more importantly, finding words and ways to speak these things > which we are not taught about, and are otherwise not able to speak about. > > This is not at all about flinging mud, it's about having a conversation we > desperately need to have. > > We have to start somewhere. > > > > Outcome and opportunities really look basically the same to me; > > Well, that's not the case. I see you are focusing on their difference; I see them as basically the same. > Outcome is the result. > > Opportunity is the environment, the "rules", a level playing field - > conceptually very different to outcome. The environment, the rules, the playing field: are all the result of things that have happened. Peoples' behaviors, acting in their outcomes. Outcome is your opportunity, within and after that outcome. Opportunity, is the outcome of what happened before, to give it to you. I'm not up to speed on the politically-specific meanings, obviously. But what it sounds like it comes down to, is that we need to be free to talk about and address the real issues instead of putting 'socialist' bandaids on them. So long as we are fighting instead of talking productively, those bandaids keep emerging (on a scale of decades). > > If you look at the reasons outcomes change, > > undiscussed differences in opportunities show up. > > Here's where people often get all dichomatic - the false assertion that "it > must be all the environment and luck". > > It's not, but it's also NOT not those things: > > It's both, all three, all four etc: > > - latent capacity/ abillity, genetics, shape of your vocal chords, length of > your legs etc > > - luck > > - opportunity > > - environment of nurture, training, etc > > - internal characteristics like will, persistence, emotional temperament and > more > > ... and as we progress through life, one or another of these facets of an > individual and his/her environment, can impact, benefit or restrict, some > other aspect(s). I'm not quite sure what point you're making here, but some relevant additional information is that opportunity and outcome flow forward, to children and grandchildren. They inherit not only your genes, but also a ton of your knowledge, beliefs, wealth, friends, education, laws, culture. If their parents were slaves, workers of an oppressive regime, or addicted to a youtube channel, these things were probably given to them by those who guide what they learn. > > We are to at least some degree, authors of our own lives. > > AND we are to a degree a product of our environment. > > AND we are blessed, or challenged by our latent capacities. All things that we can influence, and that others have influenced. > > > Once again, I must thank Cari for reminding us (for values of "us" > corresponding to "me") of being conscious when we use dichotomies. Oh, since there are very few real dichotomies, if any, dichotomies show the boundaries of all the things we described above. > > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 1:02 AM Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > > > > > > A good summary for anyone who might've missed the memo on equality of > > > outcome (equity) vs equality of opportunity: > > > > > > > > > Why Equality Of Outcome Can Never, Ever Work > > > Troy Smith via AmericanThinker.com > > > > > > https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/10/why_equality_of_outcome_can_never_ever_work.html > > > > > > https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-equality-outcome-can-never-ever-work > > > > > > In the early 20th century, in support of equality of outcome, Soviet > > > communist dictator Vladimir Lenin coined the phrase, "Who, Whom." > > > The > > > concept was simple. > > > > > > In a socialist society, where equality of outcome takes precedence > > > over > > > equality of opportunity, a critical question arises: who plans, > > > directs, > > > and redistributes the resources of a society, and to who is the > > > beneficiary, or victim — the object, the "whom" — of said > > > redistribution? > > > > > > Politically speaking, the central maxim is to represent > > > "disenfranchised" > > > groups, provide them with monetary resources and government or state > > > positions, and reshape any imbalances of power that have come to > > > exist. > > > The catch is that once power is given to central planners to > > > initiate > > > such action, "there will be no economic or social questions that > > > would > > > not be political questions in the sense that their solution will > > > depend > > > exclusive on who wields the coercive power" (Hayek, p. 138). In > > > other > > > words, the question of Who, Whom is what equality of outcome hinges > > > upon. > > > All internal struggles are squashed. > > > > > > In a society structured to foster equality of opportunity, three > > > things > > > tend to determine how successful someone is or isn't: intelligence > > > (or > > > skill), industriousness, and luck. On the surface, these things > > > may seem > > > unfair. For example, someone born into a family that promotes and > > > develops education, who was taught about the value of hard work and > > > had > > > resources and connections on hand, would clearly have an enormous > > > advantage over someone born into a split or uninterested family, > > > enduring > > > a failing public school system, with few or no mentors. Despite > > > this, > > > the equality of opportunity has two overwhelming advantages: > > > > > > - first, success, or the lack thereof, is not predetermined by any > > > bureaucracy or person in charge but instead by one's own > > > ability and > > > fortune. > > > > > > - Second, it is the only guarantee that we have freedom to own > > > property > > > and control our own lives, whereas with equality of outcome, all > > > properties and liberties must be tightly regulated by the > > > bureaucrat. > > > > > > As Hayek notes, > > > > > > "In a planned society we shall all know that we are better or > > > worse > > > off than others, not because of circumstances which nobody > > > controls, > > > and which it is impossible to foresee with certainty, but > > > because some > > > authority wills it" (p, 138). > > > > > > Who would these bureaucrats then be in a landscape that promotes > > > equality > > > of outcome? > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 07:53:41PM +1100, Zig the N.g wrote: > > > > Saw female reporter's nipple prominence and asked "is it cold in > > > > argentina?" > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sputniknews.com/viral/202001311078192175-is-it-cold-in-argentina-journo-draws-twitter-ire-after-taking-a-jab-at-female-reporters-nipples/ > > > > > > > > Apparently, this is called sexism, not reporting - although I guess I > > > > was asking a question, but implicit in the question was a fact - if > > > > you looked, deep, enough. > > > > > > > > Got told I should get some sex-ism training. > > > > > > > > Absolutely frustrating. @SvenSpoormakers your comment is > > > > inappropriate. We are more than the clothes we wear. If you > > > > can't understand why your comment is inappropriate I suggest > > > > getting some training around sexism. > > > > — Michele Reid (@Bliss_On_Earth) January 30, 2020 > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/Bliss_On_Earth/status/1222736807894241280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw > > > > > > > > Sounded possibly kinky so I went along until I discovered that not > > > > only was it about some neo-linguistic cultural marxism, but > > > > absolutely no one had their nipples showing! > > > > > > > > Absolutely frustrating! > > > > > > > > Just looking at my bike on the balcony, thinking how much I > > > > love cycling and bam, yet again something happens to remind me > > > > that it is a great sport despite the people in it. Spoormakers > > > > needs to grow up. @SvenSpoormakers > > > > — Peter Warne (@pzwarne) January 30, 2020 > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/pzwarne/status/1222874772452904960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw > > > > > > > > "Bam!" alright - there's a reason I love cycling, > > > > > > > > https://www.yandex.com/search/?text=cycling+love+seat > > > > Joyride: New Device Poised to Turn Bicycles Into Sex Machine > > > > > > > > https://sputniknews.com/society/202001301078181463-joyride-new-device-poised-to-turn-bicycles-into-sex-machines/ > > > > > > > > ... but it's more along the lines of "I wonder, does a sex change > > > > actually "work"?" > > > > > > > > Our real concern of course is the NSA monitoring - completely > > > > illegally - our teledildonics metadata! > > > > > > > > Absolutely frustrating! > > > > > > > > Teledildonics Users 'Sexually Assaulted' by Hackers > > > > bitchute.com›video/j2jB9IsnP2A/ > > > > "Mr. Roger's NSA & Death of The Sex Symbol" 12/6/19. > > > > > > > > Well, at least now that females are equal to males, including > > > > biologically, women are free to talk pub talk as much as the blokes > > > > are too ... right? I guess that's how the twitterati finally figured > > > > out the real problem with this female reporter - she was wearing, > > > > like, waaay too much, like (did I mention 'like'?): > > > > > > > > ... > > > > Also, This girl btw was not going around naked ffs > > > > — Flavia Cappellini (@FlaviaCapps) January 30, 2020 > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/FlaviaCapps/status/1222836406625718276?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw > > > > > > > > Glad we cleared -that- argentinian ex-pro-cyclist nipple problem up. > > > > The sad part is that women take it all so seriously, like you're out > > > > in public without a chaperone already, surely that's enough to have a > > > > laugh? > > > > > > > > Or is it "have a laugh, but not when men crack a joke, because > > > > they're more equal than we are it's just not fair" ?? > > > > > > > > So, someone is upset that a woman is not wearing a bra, while > > > > reporting on an event which has 150 men, all of whom are not > > > > wearing underpants? > > > > — Girona Cycling (@GironaCycling) January 30, 2020 > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/GironaCycling/status/1223018508306567171?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw > > > > > > > > Listen hunni bunni sweeti pickle pie, it was humorous, and you're > > > > assuming upset? Experiencing a distinct lack of pickles in ya diet > > > > per'aps? > > > > > > > > Nipple up, buttercup :) > > > > > > > > Nice to see the sex is finally equal ... except for females who want > > > > privileges to not be commented on, whilst claiming all male > > > > pribileges. > > > > > > > > Absolutely frustrating - I'm just so, frustrated "just like a female" > > > > ... I guess :D > > > > > > > > Remember folks, penis = man, which is an extraordinarily powerful > > > > message - you see, penis power arises from being a man, and inherent > > > > with being a man, is having a penis - just ignore the statistically > > > > insignificant hermaphrodites for a moment: > > > > > > > > No Justice: Penis Man Taken Down by AR-15-Wielding SWAT Team > > > > > > > > http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/no-justice-penis-man-taken-down-by-ar-15-wielding-swat-team/ > > > > > > > > (We can guess that expanding his message to be just -slightly- more > > > > factual (literally, factually inclusive) from "penis man" to "penis, > > > > man or hermaphrodite" wouldn't have had the same ring. > > > > > > > > +1 for confronting anti-CIS anti-factual bigots I guess... > > > > > > > > At least swat teams also arrest women who get public with vagina > > > > propaganda ... don't they? > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > Next up, N.gger Joe beer :D > > > > > > > > Germany Produces Nazi Beer, Jews Do Not Find Humor in This > > > > > > > > http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/germany-produces-nazi-beer-jews-do-not-find-humor-in-this/ > > > > > > > > ... > > > > I personally walked into the Jewish Question because the Jews > > > > were so whiny. You can always rely on Jews to flip out and start > > > > whining. And this is beneficial to my personal life mission, > > > > which is to cause people to become upset on the internet. > > > > > > > > They are even more reliable than women. At least one in a million > > > > times, a woman will manage to walk away from the screen instead > > > > of gobbling up bait like a hypersonic bait-gobbling machine. > > > > ... > > > >
