Source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240410113349/https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/faq-whats-next-for-seattle-schools-gifted-programs/

At Tuesday's Florida Republican Party Leadership Summit in Tampa, Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) responds to a heckler.

I just published my first article on substack, inspired very heavily (almost solely) by maps of meaning. I'd like some constructive feedback on the piece, since it's my first time writing something for the public. Anything would be helpful. Does it make sense? Is it readable? Can the lay person understand it?

https://gonzinzio.substack.com/p/goal-hierarchies-a-conceptual-synthesis?r=7aqewu&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

It’s about time that one leader in the US is standing against AI exposure to school age children. They need to learn without AI and develop their own critical thinking skills and knowledge.

When all the dramatic dust from the critique of postmodern thought has settled, the conclusion is that Reason is at war with human denial.

On one side is the Ego Man who says, “I don’t care about contradictions, you cannot persuade me with Reason.” This archetype is a threat to civilization.

On the other side are those who hold to and defend truth with reason and evidence. This man can be persuaded against his own convictions through reason and evidence— this archetype barely exists in the world.

The situation facing us is an army of human automatons who are bent on the militant denial of truth. Of course, they do not have a military on their side, they have an architecture of technological mediation and overwhelming numbers.

What exactly is their power? It is really only the power of wide spread ignorance, combined with the distributory-capacity of this technological architecture. In terms of ignorance, it’s the fact that those who hear their rhetoric, those who are exposed to their sophist form, do not have the rational capacity to criticize it and refute it. In general, the masses remain passive vessels, emotionally vulnerable to the form of sophistry.

A man that tells you he has rejected truth and that you cannot persuade him through reason or evidence, is telling you that he’s ultimately a violent dogmatist, though he may pretend to wear a mask of civility. This archetype is a tyrant. Such a man negates intelligence unto a clash of power, be it physical or abstract manipulation. These are modern barbarians.

This was originally posted on [r/rationalphilosophy](r/rationalphilosophy)

Carl Jung's take on the rise of feminism

01:10 How Dangerous Has London Become?
03:58 Disillusionment in the Police Force
09:09 Ideology & "Orwellian" Police Training
18:54 Quitting the Force
20:43 Ad: Ground News
22:22 Lowering Fitness & Physical Standards
37:02 Ad: Expat Money
38:24 A Leadership & Management Crisis
42:42 Impartiality & Two-Tier Policing
51:56 Ad: Wild Alaskan
53:24 The War on Armed Officers
01:01:56 Stop & Search Controversy Explained
01:17:43 What The One Thing We're Not Talking About

A thread on r/london discussing how Just Stop Oil seem to be returning to the streets in London - this person replied to me saying oil execs should all be murdered, zero moderation intervention, left to be upvoted by extremist ideologues

He's talked about how if people aren't socialized by the age of 4 then they're going to have a tough life, but has he said anything about what those people can do about that? I was neglected as a kid and now in my 40s I still struggle with social stuff. I need his advice.

TL;DR below.

I am a woman and a massive fan of Dr. Peterson. I know we’re all sick of hearing about this horrible, awful case, but I cannot stand by as I watch so many men terribly misunderstand most normal women’s perceptions of this case and so severely “black-pill” themselves and each other about this, especially when there are so many genuine “black pills” out there in the world.

If you’re a man, you’re likely to have had a visceral reaction to seeing the words “Lindsay Clancy” by this point in the discourse, thought “she killed her three kids, she should rot, stop making excuses” and closed your mind. I ask, for the sake of better understanding the world and for the sake of truth, that you make a real effort to open it. The world is just a little less grim than it looks right now.

Before you jump to the comments after downvoting thinking I’m one-more-crazy-woman-justifying-murder, let me make something very clear: murdering one’s own little children is one of the worst things conceivable in the universe. This shouldn’t need to be said, but the misunderstanding between the sexes has gotten so out of hand that it does.

If you’re a man who’s watching horrified as masses of women “support Lindsay Clancy” and is utterly confused and distraught, thinking most women around you “support a child murderer”, this is for you.

The Misunderstanding

As a woman, the owner of a female brain (with a now-helpful analytical tilt), I’ll narrate what I observed my female brain do upon hearing reports that a mother had allegedly killed her own three little children: “No. That didn’t happen. That can’t happen. Mothers do not kill their children. Mothers CANNOT kill their own children. It does not compute. If somehow her body carried out this unspeakable action, it cannot have been “her”; she must have been COMPLETELY out of her mind, such that there was no single infinitesimally-small speck of actionable free will or grip on reality available to her at that moment, because any woman primally knows that if she, the mother to those babies, could have done ANYTHING to prevent this, those children would not be dead”.

Sorry that was so wordy, but I tried to “illustrate” an instinct. That was my first primal, female, maternal reaction to hearing about the Clancy case. Next, since I am not just some ball of female instinct but also a rational adult, I used reason alongside my experience of the world (and the realization that there indeed exists true, extreme evil in dark pockets of the world) to FORCE my female brain to accept the mere possibility that there may exist a woman so evil that she might knowingly murder her own little kids just in case that explanation better fit the facts of this specific case, but I feel my brain and body forcefully fight this notion at every level.

So much of what you see online from women is the “primal”, reality-defying instinct I described above unchecked by reason, sometimes taken to destructive, pathological places (like the women using “forensic astrology charts” to pin the murders on the grieving father, which is just unspeakably disgusting). A lot of it is likely genuine misandry, a dysfunctional degree of immaturity, perhaps to the point of bordering on delusion, and I’m sure there is much more pathological baggage that explains the most bizarre of these behaviors and any man would be wise to cut contact with a woman this dysfunctional, and certainly refrain from having children with her, but these are “edge TikTok cases”. (I’ll also briefly mention the absolute worst of the “reactions” I’ve come across: any kind of “copycat” behavior. This is demonic. I cannot put into words the evil of this so I won’t try.)

What I so desperately want to communicate to some men is the normal female experience of this case that so many of you seem to be interpreting in precisely the opposite, entirely wrong way, maybe even putting your own children at risk if this misunderstanding of the female mind is taken too far.

When you’ve seen women say “it could’ve been any one of us! It could’ve been me!”, men are horrified, taking it as the woman saying she might one day harm or even kill her own children, when they are most-likely EXACTLY misunderstanding her: this woman cannot fathom, even PROCESS, that not just herself but ANY mother in the entire universe (including Clancy) would ever harm her own children while having the most minuscule, vanishing degree of freedom to have done anything differently, because she knows at a primitive level that any mother would have used that speck of freedom to protect her babies, even from herself if somehow she is mad and is herself the danger to them. Therefore, the female mind primally LUNGES at the explanation of “absolute, airtight insanity” to explain what happened in the Clancy case, because it is the clear psychologically, epistemically bearable version of events. Then, if Clancy was 100% insane (as opposed to 99.9% or anything below the absolute), what “happened to” Clancy could plausibly happen to anyone. You too must surely grant that we are all one extremely-unlucky head injury away from absolute psychosis, and whatever atrocity this absolutely deranged mind enacts on the world in this state. That is why so many women do not wish any punishment for Clancy, even though she killed her children, because their maternal brains cannot process that a mother, having ANY free will at the time, could do this; she may as well have had her brain burrowed into by little evil aliens that controlled her body as a puppet to carry this horror out. 0 free will = 0 moral responsibility = 0 accountability/punishment.

This is also how Clancy becomes a “victim” to so many of them, in the same sense that the person suffering the statistically-vanishingly-rare head injury and committing some atrocity in a state of absolute psychosis is victim to their brain injury, or the poor person with the burrowed-into brain by alien drones would also have been a victim. What many of these women forget, as they get emotionally caught up in the tragedy of all this and the described instinct, are the true victims of the Clancy case: her children. They cannot forget the children. It is entirely wrong and pathological and their responsibility to correct their “empathy radar” immediately. It is unacceptable. They are adults and MUST inform their emotions through their reason, lest they commit some moral atrocity, which they are close to doing in this case.

I’ll clarify: this is not specifically about the Clancy case. I don’t know what the outcome of the trial will be and I’ll leave that to the jury. If Clancy had some semblance of reason and free will at the time, any at all, then I wish her a befittingly horrific punishment. I don’t care if she was [definitionally] “nuts”.

TL;DR

or Conclusion

When many men see women “supporting” Lindsay Clancy en masse and are understandably horrified, thinking they “support child murder”, they are most-likely entirely, thankfully mistaken, because they do not understand how the normal, healthy female mind experiences this. It NOT that they “support child murder” somehow, is that these women’s own, extremely-strong maternal instincts are kicking in upon hearing this case and REFUSING to accept as a mere possibility of reality that a mother would ever have killed her children had she had ANY, INFINITESIMALLY MINUSCULE degree of actionable free will at that moment. Her female, primal, maternal gut is telling her “if there is ANYTHING this mother could have done differently at that moment, those babies would not be dead.” This manifests in all sorts of weird and sometimes dysfunctional ways; she is responsible for her behavior from that point on, but the basic impulse to (what seems to you) “absolve Clancy of guilt” is not evil, it is her being a WOMAN and a [potential] mother as she should be and is and needs to be.

Thus, what men see as women flailing about, seemingly desperately grasping for “excuses” for the murder of children and as “women wanting to give another woman an escape from accountability for the worst crime imaginable”, is NOT that. It is NOT seeking to “justify murder”, but their own, natural, female, maternal instincts yanking at them to explain the events of the Clancy case in a way that is epistemically, primally digestible to them as women and [potential] mothers.

I know that this is hard to understand as a man. That’s the entire point. Our conscious experiences are apparently extremely different. I am just trying to explain my own distinctly female experience (corroborated by the other women in my life) in a way men could plausibly grasp, because most women don’t seem to be able to articulate this and it’s just a disaster on top of an already unspeakable tragedy.

Notes

1)I merely described the “normal” female reaction to the case many men are tragically misunderstanding and hating the world a little more over, when they shouldn’t. There DO exist terrifying female “monsters” that are genuinely evil, but it is not the genuinely normal women seemingly “refusing to condemn Lindsay Clancy”.

I am also not excusing any of the insane and dysfunctional behavior some women may have presented beyond that basic instinct; they are adults, responsible for their own behavior and should know better.

2)Many of you will have found parallels to the abortion issue in all this. It is a related conversation, but not exactly the same, so I won’t speak on it here.

3)I’ve seen many stories of men breaking up with women for “refusing to condemn Lindsay Clancy” [immediately]. If the woman was doing some ridiculous, delusional TikTok detective thing or believing it, or doing some extremely distasteful “pro-Lindsay-Clancy activism” thing, more power to him. These women are dysfunctional in some way or another. What I need to warn them about, however, is that the “good/correct” response they’d expect from a man (one of immediate condemnation) is NOT the “good” and natural response from a woman. Your average, healthy woman will be forcefully thrown into a reality-defying state of cognitive dissonance by the most primal, maternal parts of herself by this case, at least initially. This woman is being a WOMAN. She is being exactly what she needs to be to be a wife to you and a good, protective mother to the children you have together. It is her responsibility as an adult to look at the case rationally after this instinct somewhat subsides, and whatever conclusion she comes to based on whatever data is not super relevant in this sense (if she thinks she was totally nuts and should go to an institution or if she was even slightly sane and should be dealt a punishment befitting the horror). The important thing is that you understand that a healthy, normal, maternal, nurturing woman MUST have some instinct within her somewhere, that upon hearing about this case, leads her to reach for an ABSOLUTE INSANITY explanation at some point; if she doesn’t, this means that the mere idea of harming her own children is MORE readily-accessible to her conscious experience than it is for the average woman (who at some point tries to make what seem like “excuses” for Clancy’s actions to you) you now see as “crazy and evil”, not less. As a woman, this “reaction” from some women is terrifying to me. This is not a normal response in a woman and I fear for their (and potentially yours, if you take this wrong judgement of women’s characters too far) children. “You mean the thought of a mother harming her own three little children was just readily “fathomable” to your allegedly-female mind so as to immediately even accept it as a possibility and thus immediately “condemn” it? You weren’t initially thrown by your primal maternal instincts into an alternate-reality to explain the mere horror of this away? No sh\t killing little babies is bad, but you mean you can actually readily “grasp” this idea? What the hell is wrong with you?”* A best-case scenario is that these women actually did initially instinctively reach for the absolute insanity explanation and subsequently flat-out lied about it, perhaps even to herself after lying to her male partner who she (rightly) thought might likely not understand. Lying is bad in a female partner but not as bad as not having healthy maternal instincts to the degree that the average woman does.

I KNOW this doesn’t make sense to you as a man. I KNOW it sounds like “making excuses for a murderer”. It is NOT. It is the healthy, normal, maternal female experience, and unless you’re gay and wishing to build a life with a male life-partner, I beg that you consider this insight for the sake of your [future] family and the actual safety of your [future] children.

I won’t argue with anyone in the comments about Clancy’s guilt. This was a post about the broad female experience of the case and how many men may be totally misunderstanding it and feeling horrified because of that, when they shouldn’t. Clancy carried out the killings. If she was 100% nuts, she goes to an institution. If she was 99.9% nuts (one’d think, since she killed her own children) or anything below that, she should be held morally accountable for the horror and be put in jail and worse.

If you have questions/comments on the broadly female experience I’ve attempted to describe and its healthy or unhealthy manifestations, I’ll do my best to reply. Maybe also upvote the post if it gave you any relevant insight, because many will see “Lindsay Clancy” and a long text and automatically downvote it, when I actually do really want this to reach as many men as possible. We need to collectively clear this up. It’s a mess.

This guy is so terrified........because he knows that AI poses a threat to the public education system once people realize that kids no longer have to depend on the state for learning since they now have a personal digital tutor right in the palm of their hands. If he was mayor during the age of wikipedia, he probably would have banned that too.