Let Me Introduce A Pair Of Rather Less Admirable Siblings In The Relativist Family. The First Of These

"Mäletan, kuidas sa mõne aasta eest südametäiega pahvatasid metsaraiumise kohta: see on ju riiklik laastamine! Ja veel enam jäi hinge kõrvulukustav vaikus, mis peale seda mõtteruumis maad võttis. Ei tõtanud keegi noid sõnu parandama ega ümber lükkama, las vana mees räägib, maailm veereb edasi, uued uudised tulevad ja ebamugavus lahtub, piinlik apsakas ununeb. Aga see, mis oli varjul nende sõnade taga, jäi. See pilt, kuhu osutas sinu tõstetud sõrm. Vaadake seda maad, milline häbi! See, mida riik on teinud oma loodusega, ei ole olnud väärikas. Eesti loodusega on läinud samamoodi, nagu läks indiaanlastega. Selle maa loodus on lõputute seadusemuudatuste, arengukavade ja töötubade kaudu viimaks ikkagi inimeste käest välja petetud, nende hinge on väärkoheldud, väärikust alandatud. Eesti Loodus elab edasi reservaadis, see on ilus, seda saab imetleda, sealt metsaande korjata, piltegi teha, seminare ja töötubasid korraldada. Aga midagi on muutunud, lõplikult. Midagi väga olulist on surnud – eks sõnastagem see. Mis see siis on? Pihta on saanud loodus, aga ka usk elu põhiväärtustesse. Usk Eesti looduse kaitsesse on kokku kukkunud. Selle asemele on tulnud teadmine, kui odav on riik, kui alandlik ja hirmunud, kui lihtne on teda raha ja ähvardustega üles osta, panna tegema seda, mida ta mingil juhul teha ei tohiks. Riik on samm-sammult taganenud raha surve ees. Riik on kaotanud väärikuse. See on kõige hullem asi, mis saab juhtuda. Loodus annab riigile väärikuse. Loodus on riigi südametunnistus. Ühiskonda ei iseloomusta mitte see, mida ta loob, vaid see, mida ta keeldub hävitamast. Nii on arvanud Ameerika looduskaitsja John C. Sawhill."

- Valdur Mikita Järelhüüe Fred Jüssile "Head teed sulle, kotkas"

friendship with russians is when they conquer your land through a genocide and then say: “we can live in peace, but acting like your culture is equal with mine is russophobic. speak russian, please”

National Geographic, May  1972

you have the most hilariously naive politics i've ever seen, it's milquetoast pacifist liberalism meets autistic rationalism. grow a fucking backbone you fuck.

I think there’s something deeply wrong with any kind of political environment in which “I am unconditionally not okay with mass murder” is considered contemptibly pacifist.

I’m not even saying that mass murder shouldn’t be discussed (though I think it’s super inappropriate to tell a fellow participant in the conversation that they should be murdered), just that certain subbubbles of the Left have constructed this environment in which it is inherently pathetic, inherently contemptible, to say “mass murder is a really awful thing and if we can achieve our goals without it that’s worth striving for” or even “no matter what, I won’t endorse or participate in mass murder”. 

I can imagine how I’d be a Marxist. 30,000 kids die preventable deaths every day and that makes me angrier and sadder than you can possibly imagine and if I’d gotten ensnared in an ideology that claimed the only way for that to end was to kill all of the rich people, I’d probably also go around saying “kill all the rich people!” But I hope I’d never, ever equate “willingness to call for murder” with “moral strength” or “strength of character”.

Valuing life is moral strength. Protecting people is strength of character. Calling for mass murder from your keyboard is cowardice. And the communities that deny those things, that circle the wagons around their conviction that willingness to kill people is equivalent to having a backbone, that claiming “the rich all deserve to die” is moral strength, that caring about human life is hilariously naive -

- well, first of all, you’ll never get anything done. My friends and I will end those  deaths, eradicate malaria, fix global inequality, hunt down every source of human suffering and watch it take its last breath while you’ll sit there going “milquetoast pacifists! hilariously naive! the rich are not innocent!”. But second of all, you’ll spend your not-accomplishing-anything time in a bubble where caring about all human life is a weakness, where not wanting to murder people is disgusting and contemptible, and I know people are different psychologically but I can’t imagine anything worse than that.

So, just so you know, there are people who are angry about global inequality, people who want to end all of the bad things in the world, people who feel the same pain and anger that you feel. But we don’t treat mass murder as inevitable. We don’t call people weak for disagreements. We don’t admire people for their willingness to kill for the cause, or even for their willingness to suffer for the cause - just for their ability to change stuff so there’s no more cause and we can all retire happily to a world without poverty. And we’d love to have you. If you ever get tired, come join us, we milquetoast autistic rationalist liberals, because you don’t have to rant on the internet about killing people to earn our esteem, you just have to fix stuff.

Ella M. Singer Somewhere in the Forest

…unfortunately, it’s true: time does heal. It will do so whether you like it or not, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. If you’re not careful, time will take away everything that ever hurt you, everything you have ever lost, and replace it with knowledge. Time is a machine: it will convert your pain into experience. Raw data will be compiled, will be translated into a more comprehensible language. The individual events of your life will be transmuted into another substance called memory and in the mechanism something will be lost and you will never be able to reverse it, you will never again have the original moment back in its uncategorized, preprocessed state. It will force you to move on and you will not have a choice in the matter.

Charles Yu, How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe (via naranzarian)

The main response by the authors in defense is that genetic diversity is a ‘proxy variable.’ This is a common assertion, but I find it really infuriating. I happen to drink coffee most days, which correlates with my happiness. So coffee consumption is a ‘proxy’ for my happiness. Therefore, I can put it in a regression and predict the relationship between my happiness and the amount of times I go to the bathroom. Ergo universal conclusions: ‘Relieving yourself improves mental well-being.’ New policy— you should relieve yourself at least two times per day in order to maintain high levels of emotional well-being.

Kyle Peyton Regarding this controversy.

sky-lines by anthony samaniego on Flickr.

I am proposing something more like a founding myth for an aspect of the way our minds are set up.  I am sitting in a coffee shop full of predators. They eat animal flesh, they have the binocular vision typical of animals that need to focus on and assess prey from afar, from a still vantage point. They manipulate one another expertly - they manipulate millions, organizing each other into tribes, cities, armies, nations. They use each other. They might have any of a thousand reasons for saying something, other than the truth. And yet, they are the most compassionate animals ever seen. One reason for an animal to evolve a capacity to think about other animals is in order to benefit from cooperation within a herd. There is (also) a very different reason evolution would favor a faculty for understanding other animals: to prey on them. If you want to hunt and eat other agents, it helps to be able to predict their behavior - so you model it. Humans are... an animal with these twin drives. The ability to receive signals from a member of the herd empathetically, and the ability to model the behavior of another agent predatorily. Being modeled explicitly as a system with inputs, outputs, and predictable behavior can creep people out. This contributes to the strong negative responses to attempts to learn social skills by building an explicit model of social interactions. Acting, not quickly and spontaneously, but slowly, deliberately, thinking about a problem for a long time before making a move. It seems like the sort of thing a person would do - not to someone they wanted to cooperate with - but someone they wanted to eat. It feels like having a single set of eyes, close together with binocular predator vision, silently watching you. A solo predator and a herd animal, inextricably connected together, in our more reflective moments not always sure we can trust ourselves even to be good to our friends, not sure we can trust others to be what they say they are, and yet, something in this unusual combination lets us fake it, lets us approximate what it might be, to be a mind that truly loves another.

Benjamin R. Hoffman ‘The Predator in the Herd’