tetranomos

tbh, it's one of the drier bits like what you might find any day on language log (upenn). do you read much philosophy of art anyway?

my favorite pornotrope is how people still swear by the belief that apple computers suffer no "malware", because why are androids apparently so promiscuous like any black person wants to spoof torvalds' github username

do androids sleep with promiscuous scapegoats?

between The Delectable Negro and In Defence of Cannibalism (routley. 1982): and and and and?

since you know by 2020 that modeling categorical logic and categorical truth tables tell you less about the "trumper" than the non-trumper do you [really] want to risk it, framing the trumper, at least, as a "moron" who can't muster the "IQ" points (btw, was everybody jumping on that that new EQ+AQ+SQ wagon to own the Young-Girl's war on war)?

that paradoxical circumstance where trump acts the fool, because he knows you'll take the bait, in front of his base, amplified by algorithmic blunders: socialism and barbarism/annihilation, have always lived side-by-side. your mythology of technology only cyclically prevents you from seeing that.

he's no brian leiter.

one cat's nip is another cat's jazz

1. metacognitive myopia explained why people didn't/couldn't update their beliefs about the existence of "weapons of mass destruction etc".
2. dogwhistling the threat of sexual revolution "comrade kamala" (i.e., he's implying hypocrisy when he doesn't understand what lenin's use of the term "prostitute" meant).
3. playing the fool until you can't (i.e., making his base feel insightful and "seen" as playfully serious, homophilically/mimetically charismatic; e.g., his base feels like their inference-making is being promoted based on linguistic sympathy through the aura of charisma).
4. from (3) somewhere in his administration they're letting the would-be "fool" base do the grunt-work and creating cover; see "Optimal Team Formation Under Asymmetric Information".

elizabeth warren lampoons trump and vance

seems more important that people wanted him to, even if he didn't, as what a settlement might imply.

is the threat better than the existence of the threat? does threatening mean being constantly present?

have books become too heavy for men?