Giochads ASSEMBLE!

What an unexpected crossover, I'd love to see more of dr neema parvini who is friends with gio.

Every teenager is larping until they become the thing.

This discussion was like finding an oasis of signal in a desert of noise.

Nice to see Mikey again. Been a while.

Gio has lost weigh, nice to see. Keep it up.

Very enlightening and entertaining.

I enjoyed this, thanks for posting.

8:45 Wave at Kara Dansky everyone! 👋

As a fellow Aussie, the Melbourne Cup was above all other celebrations except Xmas for many years. In 1969, my Catholic nun teachers argued all day about letting us watch the First Moon Landing live, but they wheeled out the TV trolley for the good ol' horsey cup every yea, without us students asking. Of course, we went in sweepstakes organised by the nuns!

Bringing two previous calmversationists together is a great idea. More such crossovers would be great!

Beautiful outro. "Speaking of grifters, where can people find you?"

this was so good, thanks. thanks for the links too.

Enjoyable discussion.

28:00 i dont think Evergreen was a reaction, but more like a mushroom, the fruitation of what had been long growing underneath

Thanks for the convo. At about the 37 minute mark you discuss the question, "how did it age?" That took me to muse on a letter of support I wrote for Peter when PSU brought him before the ethics tribunal. I re-read the letter last week and what I wrote five years ago, I stand by today. What's different is that I think I am past being defensive and angry and am now curious about how people will wake up, and if they will wake up in time.

I was gonna watch the premiere but I done napped! 😢

I forgot Nayna's a global-deep-southerner. 🦘

Are you still working on an Evergreen musical?

'On the verge of sunsetting'

Benjamin, this is the second time I've been unsubscribed from you by KZfaq! Just fyi! The last time was a year or two ago; but here we are, they've done it again.

you are doing gods work

“They have a critique of power that doesn’t critique power.” Yes. This is it.

Gio's name means "feathers," not to brag, but coincidentally I recently transformed into a rooster wearing a suit, playing a French horn. (My irl name refers to Northern Italian "levelers," construction workers in olden times, apparently replaced by that green thing nowadays that lets you check to see if your mantelpiece is off-kilter).

Liberal Post Modernist vs Liberal Scientist is a better debate. Put me in, coach.

Pollen is bad in the PNW right now...

I'd like to remain a noble "poster," however I'd also like to make money, I'm not exactly thrilled to be entering a trade and/or technical school, amidst the breakdown of the academic credentialing system. Maybe I'll spontaneously develop a Substack career.

It's strange to hear Geo trying to dunk on Lindsay when he's so clearly out of his depth. I thought maybe Nayna could save the conversation but I don't know that he's covered the deficit.

Karlyn has covered Sophie Lewis quite a bit. M E O'Brian is another one. The stuff they advocate for is wild.

So Gio's book isn't out yet?

Miro gets 1st chat today, sorry Ms. 💜😿

Oh well. 😔

1:44:31 Kek. These people are sick!

😺

country

[Apropos of nothing: I just posted this short essay on Stephen Hicks's channel, and thought it would also make sense for Benjamin's channel.] The porn industry needs to be better regulated, I think that's pretty uncontroversial. However, should the minority subset of women high in sociosexuality, someone like Aella, be legally permitted in a free society to do things like porn? Yes, there's free society on the one hand, and there's functional society on the other hand, we obviously want both. I'm not exactly knowledgeable enough to compare/contrast how, for example the Netherlands (Amsterdam) handles this kind of problem, more or less effectively than for example the US or UK. But, (for the most part in the Anglosphere,) we allow certain kinds of drugs to be bought and sold, but do not allow "open drug scenes" (except recently, in woke dystopian downtown urban areas). We allow certain kinds of sexual transactions, but do not allow public prostitution, or sex trafficking. Also, I just heard Jonathan Haidt discuss in relation to regulating (or not regulating) smartphone usage for early adolescents, how children are a different case from adults in various ways. Haidt says, the cases where even Libertarians tend to agree that lines should be drawn legally, for restricting materials and activities available to children, involve sexual content and addiction (developing brains are different, we cannot have responsible, mature citizens, if they are psychobehaviorally damaged during adolescence). Personally, I'm mostly a consequentialist, pretty much Civil Libertarian, mostly Classical Liberal, and approximately a centrist. And, I think there's one important caveat, related to Haidt's summation: I think things involving sex and sexual content, and also PHYSICAL addiction, should not legally be available to children. Although neuroscience shows that lots of influences, can "nudge" people of all ages, and therefore that SOME of what the social constructivists say, has SOME validity, these observations do not constitute a justification for restricting all content, or suspending all liberties. I maintain that the ultimate defense for a free and liberal society, is that the public sphere is its own laboratory, and involves a massive experiment that's being run all the time. This includes the way in which formal education is 'administered,' as one important variable. The truth is, assuming the ultimate arbiters are human health, and replicable empirical observation, while Nietzsche and the pragmatists respectively, were wrong about which methods work best at the macro-level of society, and the micro-level of formal education, nevertheless their fundamental observations about humans and behavior, are largely being proved correct. Blank slate is wrong, the existence of "individuals" on the traditional definition is wrong, and Sapolsky and others explain how determinism is essentially being proved correct. So, why should we not all become Nietzschean pragmatists? In what sense is Classical Liberalism still defensible? Well another question is: since blank slate was disproven, should we have immediately adopted a "guilty until proven innocent" legal precedent, whereby all defendants are convicted or not, based primarily on immutable characteristics? The ultimate question to address this predicament is: what is philosophy? Answers might differ, but if it's essentially: the most adaptive set of heuristics by which people typically engage with the world, and also seek to develop and maintain a functional society, then Classical Liberalism is entirely defensible. Liberalism's claims cannot be proven literally correct, in a neuroscience research lab, just the opposite. But, as a set of adaptive heuristics, there's hardly any argument to be made AGAINST Liberalism. I'm not a philosopher, not sure if I have this part exactly right, but it seems to me that (perhaps strangely,) it's effectively been through the process of proving Liberalism's epistemology to be false, that we've proven its ontology to be all the more accurate, and have thereby ultimately strengthened the paradigm.

Also "egalitarian world" just is never going to happen. It's silly on all fronts. We're going to have billions of people living equally with equal power regardless of any factors? Like get real. We want to eliminate poverty and give people strength, but egalitarian is just not real

I will never understand doctors for surgery outside of the worst of paid butchers. This is for all truely selective surgery. Anyone who's gone through training on the human body knows messing around means harm. Medical is allowed because it reduces worse harm. Selective due to insurance is also allowed (non-life threatening, but something like not having teeth is still gunna be a problem). Just blows my mind how people with knowledge of the human body can even go there and not think "im one of the baddies"

"The promise of liberalism is that everyone has a say in growing" aka a great way for creditors to grow crookedly and the weak to off themselves