Like this guy
What does he actually mean by destroy it? How does one destroy it?
Glib posts like this endorse and encourage violence without acknowledging the actual horrific acts.
Yes, you are guaranteed a fixed point. The fixed point itself depends on the set you're mapping from (all permutations of possible strategies), the set you're mapping to (all possible outcomes), the mappings themselves (how you determine the outcome of a particular strategy permutations), the function space the mappings exists in, and the ordering on the outcome space.
The thing you missed was that I was opposed to police violence before you even had heard of the issue. I appreciate your prose though
the root reason for why i value order and stability is probably because i imagine my life to be better in a stable world than a violent one. i also think this is true for the majority of americans, including black ones; i.e the revolution is not worth it. you can claim the revolution is worth it, in which case 1) okay, please paint a picture of your viable endgame and 2) its still not worth it for me.
change is fine if its good change. its not clear that tearing down the institutions will lead to good change. if it does lead to good change, how long will it take?
I appreciate everything you wrote here except for the bottom line that I don't think anyone reasonable or educated reads the things ewiz writes and thinks they're reasonable and educated.
Like the guy has said the entire field of economics is invalid because it takes capital as its base assumption.
if you carefully define your revolution more mildly like bernie sanders does then okay that does sound quite viable and reasonable. im against exactly the things i am against, not against the concept of revolution. i disapprove of burning things down.
yeah i mean im not an unironic revolutionary who actually has plans to try or to plan one out because i dont claim to be able to be the architect of an actually good revolution or anything
i idly dream sometimes but im still too lazy/comfortable
Lmao in R^n you use very different well-orderings based on what you're doing.
So you disagree with what's going on but can't see why you'd need violence or destruction to stop these people. What's your plan? Not pay your parking tickets? Write a stern letter?
@electrowizard is this what you said
i suspect this is taken out of some bigger context as to what economics is supposed to be invalid for but im curious as to what asoul is referring to here
It was a while back and not a direct quote but I believe he will agree with the basic concept
It was a response to something along the lines of "what you're saying misunderstands basic economics" or somethign
You said instead of investing in a HF, invest in an EW index fund and you'll have a roughly similar outcome. I provided data showing that wasn't true and explained why it isn't. Want to provide data to rebut this?
i am not a fan of exactingness in definitions because words are for communicating. if ewiz carefully defines things in ways that make his argument coherent within a particular theory, then to the rest of us who dont know his precise definitions or theory, he is just saying "there is a book with arguments that supports what i am saying" which i do believe. but i have not read the book. also, there are many books with many definitions that support many things, so its not even good evidence for me that the things he is saying is right.
alternatively, we can specifically discuss the ideas and forget about the exactness of the words. if you dont like a word, replace it with a different one. words are for communicating.
If god thought violence was so bad it shouldnât exist it wouldnât exist
It fucking matters when the numbers represent an outcome you buffoon
What sort of violent acts do you think we should commit
yes i vaguely remember this argument on the old nadota site but now im curious again as to how he'll contextualize it
Destroy it all the systems and the people in the systems and The people outside the systems and the non people
Hard restart asap
We agreed that this is unacceptable right