On Curt’s Rules of Discourse
“The Teaching Law on Social Media Is Like Teaching in A Locker Room”
- Rules of Discourse
- Are You Acting In Good Faith?
- The Intellectually Honest Skeptic Asks…
(… and the Intellectually Dishonest Overconfident Demands.)
- Dear Overconfident Young Men
- Blocking Policy
- The New Standard on Social Media
Criticisms of Curt
Well, you know, teaching in a locker room requries certain chops.
- Curt, Why Are You a Pompous Ass? (good Reason)
- A Good Criticism.
- Ad Hom’s Why Is Curt Out Of Country? (He Isn’t)
- Ad Hom in Response to Non-Argument, Falsehood, or Fraud Is Warranted.
Criticisms of Propertarianism
“There Are Some. You Aren’t Making Them. But They’re Not Of The Work”
- Known Criticisms of The Work
- Legitimate Criticism of Prop
- Another Legitimate Criticism of Prop
- A Legit Criticism that Is an Unreasonable Criticism
- On Whether Propertarianism Contains an Aesthetic
- What You *Can* Criticize
- I Don’t Have Any Technical Critics – at All
- Preface to Would Be Critics
- Limits of Criticism: Crossing the Line Into Legally Actionable
Criticism of Open Discourse on Revolt
“All Revolutions are Suspect in Prospect but Deterministic in Retrospect.”
“The Surest Means of Preventing People From Stumbling into Civil War Is To Make them Certain They Are Doing It, And That You Have A Solution To Prevent it.”
- Why No Secrecy?
- Why Talk of Revolt, Revolution, Civil War?
- How Revolutions Are Made
- The Biggest Army in The World? Us.
- The Hierarchy of Warfare
Approach to Other Conservatives
“Men Form Packs, Wear Uniforms of their Packs, and Choose Leaders of their Packs that Share Their Paradigms and Interests. Packs must work together not coalesce into a herd, It won’t happen.”
- Visions of The Future
- Thoughts on Others
- Our Packs Must Work Together Toward Shared Ends
- The Languages of Male Packs
- Fearful Conservatives – Understand Yourselves
- Intolerance – We Don”t Need You if You’re Costly
- Any Good Arguments for Supremacy?
Criticism of Others
“Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Yarvin, and Hayek and yes, Doolittle all tried to solve the problem of social sciences under rule of law versus rule by men. They just did so dragging their cultural means of persuasion, and reasoning with them. The difference is that Anglo empiricism and its scientific method is simply the operation of the court of tort applied outside the courtroom. I knew they were all close but failing. It was a hard problem made harder by their backgrounds.”
“It is rarely valuable to criticize others except to learn by doing so. They aren’t interested. The best you can do is counteract whatever harm they’re doing.”
( David is the least bad of the jewish libertarians. But at some point someone asked me to do a treatment and I did. It was so embarrassing I had to stop after ten pages. )
(“Peterson has probably run his course but done well doing so. My principal criticism is that he retains devotion to parable and mysticism. In his business of therapy this means of suggestion is an appeal to an authority that serves his purposes of reprogramming the patient without cognitive resistance. That is problematic but tolerable. What’s not tolerable is his conflation of Useful Wisdom with Truth.”)
(“I don’t really criticize Stefan, it’s more that I want him to complete his journey on the one hand and stop reinforcing silly libertarian NAP nonsense on the other.”)
(“Taleb and I work on a similar problem from two ends of the spectrum of that problem, and we have similarly intolerant personalities. However, his attempt to discredit IQ as a means of defending immigration into Europe by his people was something I couldn’t pass on.”)