https://www.gbnews.com/news/neighbour-row-wooden-fence-legal-bill

When you curse someone, dig two graves.

If you are ever faced with a real life trolley car problem, be advised that it is in fact unlawful to manipulate a real car control apparatus in an unauthorized manner. Therefore, the correct answer to any trolley car problem is to do nothing. Even if there are zero people on the other track and 15 people on the track that you are about to pull the lever for, don't pull that lever. If you do, you will then be guilty of a legal offense.

This message brought to you by Police service of the United Kingdom.

Half of men under a certain (old) age are childless. Half of women under a certain (old) age are childless.

We are in a mass extinction event, and most people have effectively already been written out of the gene pool.

During a deep review of my latest book, one of the things that came up is that this idea I'd never considered before: There's a sort of psychopathic lord of the flies dominance hierarchy written in as an assumption in a lot of contemporary fiction. Western fiction lately has had a really strong dominance hierarchy implied in all of it, where you can only move up by pushing others down. By contrast, most of human history has been something like "duty-and-care" where power flows from accepting and engaging with a mandate to take care of the people you are responsible for.

Of course, dominance hierarchies do exist. That's self-evident. That doesn't mean that such a worldview should be exclusive. Great leaders see themselves as servants to their subordinates just as much as their subordinates are servants to them. You want great leaders who are competent and powerful, but you also want great leaders whose mandate doesn't just come from competence, but from service.

This is where things like the girlboss archetype becomes inevitable. If you're a psychopath whose worldview says that power is only about being at the top of the dominance hierarchy, then the only way to show you are competent and powerful is to be the strongest, most cut-throat person who never shows any weakness. The thing is, nobody wants that sort of leader. Traditionally, that person was the villain in fiction, not the hero.

The thing is, it applies to men too, so don't think I'm singling out the girlboss. Even within the past century, consider Spider-Man: The point of his character is explicitly not that Spider-Man is the strongest character, it's that he has great power and therefore must use it responsibly.

The leader isn't ideally just whoever is the strongest this week. Ideally, it is the person who can rule with justice, honor, humility, and with the goal being elevating the group you are in charge of. To forget this fact changes everything for the worse, and it's a great reason why most people feel disconnected from a lot of current media, which is laser focused on who is the strongest or most dominant rather than the most worthy.

Those younglings Vader killed had it coming. They called him "Master Skywalker" which was just mean -- everyone knows he got a seat on that council but he did not get the rank of master.

Russia and China are both not looking so good right now. I wonder if both regions enter a warring States period if the governments collapse in the next 20 years?

If leftist activists are correct and black people can never be racist because racism is prejudice plus power, and white people are always prejudiced then:

1. Racism = Prejudice + Power

2. White people always hold power in all circumstances

3. Black people never hold power in any circumstance

4. White people are inherently prejudiced

So if this is true, then...

1. White people always have power anywhere they exist

2. Therefore in terms of having power, white people are always superior to black people.

3. Meaning, by the premises of critical theory as practiced by activists, honest white people are logically mandated to be prejudiced (at least in this one respect) within the bounds of activist CRT logic, becuase they always have power in all situations, and thus are always superior in this regard.

But why is racism wrong?

1. Racism is typically considered wrong because it is unfair -- if someone is capable of something but is kept from their potential by being prejudged as incapable due to race, then that's unfair.

But...

1. If racism is wrong because it is unfair, and critical theory logically proves that it isn't unfair, then racism isn't wrong.

2. It might look at first like the racism is instrumental to power due to our own biases, but that can't be the case because our axioms hold that white people always hold power, meaning that even in a scenario where there's one white and millions of blacks, the white holds power, suggesting that the white's mere whiteness gives them inherent power.

I don't believe in critical race theory, so I don't believe in any of the foundational statements above other than racism being wrong because it is unfair. I think of racism as any idea that one race is inherently superior to another, an older definition that doesn't self-refute like CRT racism does.

I do need to make sure I'm clear that I'm only talking about the activist version of CRT. Academic CRT may make mistakes, but not basic mistakes like this.

This also shows how postmodern-modernism is self-defeating. All you need to do in order to fix this is to accept that some black people have power and some white people don't and all the logic falls apart, but then you can't make the statement that black people can't be racist because racism is prejudice plus power which as I've shown is inherently white supremacist in its logic.

In fact, someone like Thomas Sowell (He's a world renowned economist) is inherently superior in all ways to Cletus the Goat Fucker (He fucks goats), and most people would admit that.

"Gais we just need to figure out which is the empire and which is the rebels! Then we can be the good guys!"

When I saw he won the election, I lost all faith in Canadians. Even if you're a lefty, he's a goddamned hedge fund manager!

Man, considering the next 100 years is exciting, but considering the next trillion years is depressing. The solution to the Fermi paradox is probably that solar systems where life survives the death of its planet and particularly the death of its sun is the inevitable evolution away from intelligence.

I honestly don't know how geologists and astronomers can make this shit their day job. It's a bleak view of things, looking at geological or astronomical timescales.

If we send some extremophiles to the moons of Jupiter life will thrive for a trillion years, but sentient life really requires an energetic universe to work -- partially because sentience requires energy, but partially because sentience only makes sense in a complicated world. You don't need a big brain to float around in an ocean collecting energy from osmotic gradients or next to rocks picking up stray hydrogen molecules.

So for now I'll focus on the next 100 years where human thriving and partial extinction will coexist -- because I can't do anything about a trillion years from now, but I can definitely help with the next 100 years by focusing on the next 18.

Capitalism is not consumerism. The fact that you can buy stuff doesn't mean that you should.

In fact, one could argue that irresponsible consumerism ends up becoming the end of capitalism because all those individuals who consumed irresponsibily end up demanding the wealth of anyone who didn't. "Oh, they didn't spend all their money, they still have some, you should give it to me"

It's impressive that people who want to make it illegal to use the wrong pronouns think that it should be completely legal to threaten to assassinate a sitting president.

"In that moment, most of America decided to starve to death."

Ackshually inflation has averaged 2% as long as you ignore food shelter and transportation but if you need to buy an IBM XT it's cheaper than ever!

I'm not allowed in professional men's sports.

Why?

Because I'm a big fat old guy without a speck of athletic capability.

I'm not gifted enough for the actual Olympics, not special enough for the special Olympics. But you know what, I bet you any money if I train for a few months and really clamp down I could probably beat a guy with no legs in a foot race.

Life isn't fair.

"remember: it is your patriotic duty to vandalize Tesla's"

I can't imagine how painful it must be to belong to these people's tribe.

I imagine taking the hit to buy an impractical 60,000 dollar virtue signal just to have the meta change before the payments are up, and suddenly I'm having my car which I bought to save the world vandalized.

How can you guys claim to have empathy for people who aren't like you when you don't even seem to have empathy for the people who are exactly like you?

Does this have an internal combustion engine? If it runs on dead dinosaurs it's already twice as cool as a real cybertruck.

Seems to me like there's a lot of stuff God doesn't want you to do that's possible. Adultery, creating carved images, stealing stuff, boiling goats in their mothers milk, Having Gods before that one, misusing the name of God, pretty much everyone has to work on the sabbath these days, really easy not to honor your mother and father, coveting is super easy, killing is pretty much how we all got here...

So we live in a world where sin is allowed by the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean it's something approved of by God.

So does that mean animal-human hybrids are something God would like or dislike?

No fuckin clue.

Leviticus 19:19 says not to breed different kinds of cattle, but most Christians don't think mules are evil (and the clothing you're wearing right now is almost certainly made up of several types of material, just check the washing label).

I do think that pre-epistemologically, creating something that's a little bit closer to a human than an animal is awfully squicky. How close do you get before you've created something that is effectively a human and must be treated like a human?

Even genetically modifying a pig to produce human-compatible organs might give some people a bit of squickiness. Like, you want to have body parts from a pig sewed inside of you? You know we slaughter and eat pigs (even though that's technically banned too) -- would you have a nice ham from the pig that gave you your new liver? The other thing being, the sort of feeling of profanity of using the liver (or god forbid stomach) of the pig to devour its own meat. Like, that's squicky, right?

Again, who knows? Maybe catgirls are God's plan for us!

It's complicated. In The Graysonian Ethic, I have a chapter called "Failure is an option", and come to roughly 3 major conclusions:

1. failure is an option, and it sucks. No matter how smart you are, no matter how talented you are, no matter what your fundamental aptitude, if you do not put in the work you will fail.

2. Sometimes failure is an option through no fault of your own and you have to figure out what you are going to do about it.

3. Failure is an option. Sometimes it is an option worth taking, if failing today means winning tomorrow. It is very important that you are making a conscious decision to fail rather than just allowing it to happen using strategy as an excuse for not trying.