A 2019 study by Wyatt, Young, and Graham found that liberals distribute moral concern more broadly across concentric circles (from immediate family to inanimate objects like rocks and alien life forms), while conservatives concentrate compassion in inner circles (family, friends, community, animals). However, the total moral allocation was identical between groups. The key insight is that liberals spread concern across both sentient and non-sentient categories, meaning they care about things that cannot actually be helped or harmed. This raises questions about whether the liberal pattern represents genuine compassion or performative signaling. The study suggests that when compassion is distributed so broadly that it includes non-sentient entities, it becomes functionally meaningless because you cannot feel sacrificial compassion for a rock that cannot hold anyone accountable.
Existential Crises and the need for Cyber Feminism Part 3 with TL;DRAdded:
Please give this video a like and subscribe.
All right, and we're live. Hello everybody. Sorry for the delay. Welcome back to Honeybadger Radio. My name is Brian. I'm here with Allison and Teal Deer. And this is Maintaining Frame with Teal Deer. We're going we're going to be talking about more of well this probably will be the last video on this maybe at least from this from this particular video that we're looking at um existential crisis and the need for cyber feminism which uh wow it's it's been a while but I'm I'm already getting like gobbledegook flashbacks. But before we start I guess uh Allison wanted to say uh a few words.
I maybe maybe not. Are you there?
>> Mute.
>> Struggling with the mute. All right. So, >> if you would like to send a message and a tip with that message, you can do so at feedthebadger.com/justtheip.
It's the very best way for you to send us a tip and to send us a message because it doesn't go through YouTube's comment wood chipper. And if you would, well, actually, the support isn't open yet and the plug-in issue at the blog is an ongoing problem. Looks like I'm probably going to just have to go with a completely different setup. So, that's uh I'll I'll announce that when it's available. When it is available, it will be at feedthebanger.com/support.
And we and if you're interested in seeing my additional notes related to the stuff that I talk about, modalities, um analysis of uh studies, that kind of thing. Go to badgeration.online online and take part in our join our community and you can see that stuff. All right.
Um did you want me to just uh because there's a there's something that I I think is related to this.
>> Yeah. F first of all before we do that I just want to say how are you?
>> Um well I was not aware that this was happening till shortly ago. Uh I've been gardening a lot today so I'm going to be uh kind of tired and woefully underprepared. Uh, which means I'm probably going to be quiet and uninformative, which I'm sure leaves a lot of people in the audience sitting there thinking, "So, business as usual for your contributions then."
>> No, no, no.
>> Actually, you're if you if you're operating with a handicap, then we're probably now going to be at the same level.
>> Exactly.
>> It's fine.
>> Thank Thanks for taking the time. It It won't be a long show.
>> That's fine. I still have my uh inventing women text book for slightly silly feminist uh nonsense that comes out every so often. I can check some things. There are some interesting things in here which may or may not uh come up in relation to the talk cuz I haven't uh pre-watched this little bit.
I would have done that today had I had a bit more time, but I haven't.
Uh, so I am assuming that this is now going to be cyborgs aren't what you actually think they are and why men are the cause of everything wrong in the world, which is a tale as old as time.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> A tale as old as time, which is quite funny. And I have an example of that, but I don't know. It might not be appropriate to go into.
>> Okay.
>> It entails classical literature.
>> Go ahead. Right. I'm just concerned if I I know I digress from things and this one feels a little bigger. Um >> um if if audience >> Are you familiar with our channel Honeybadger Radio?
>> Honey Badger Digress >> familiarity >> but it might be interesting that um have you ever read Mada by Uripides?
>> Um yeah probably no I will say no.
>> Okay. Okay. No. Um, Ma was the wife of Jason, as in Argonaut's golden fleece.
Jason, he was one of uh his wives. And Ma by Uripides, it starts with Ma, his former wife, being very, very upset because Jason, as a as a solar hero, he has two two women in his life. as the sun tracks across the sky, he has his dawn woman and dusk woman because this is the the archetypes of how these sorts of stories work.
And so uh he has left this woman Mada for some other princess of some kingdom whose name I can't remember in forming the military necessary military alliance. Um so Mada is quite unhappy about this. Um, anyone who knows how Jason's story ends, uh, he's depressed and gets drunk and the master of his ship falls on him and kills him. He is drunk and depressed because his wife, the the princess of the form of the, uh, kingdom that he needed to form this alliance with, uh, Ma, as his previous wife, uh, went to their wedding and gave his wife a dress, which she put on.
Little did she know it was enchanted and caused her to burst into flames. And Meda also murdered his two sons. So, you know, typical typical woman behavior really for when they don't get what they want. But the opening of this play is Ma wailing, crying, nashing of teeth. Oh, how dare my husband leave me. I'm so miserable. Woe is me. The world is ending, etc. And the two other characters that are around is um her slave and a doctor. You know, doctor's been summoned because she's being hysterical and miserable and all of that stuff. And there's a wonderful line in that that opening chapter which I think kind of summarizes like just the general attitude that women seem to have always had towards society and men in general.
And that is something along the lines of men have created all of this. Look at all of this society. All of these buildings, everything around us, they have created such marvels, such beautiful poetry, such as statues and all of this stuff. And yet, I can still be unhappy.
They haven't fixed that.
>> Yep.
>> I just found that hilarious when I read that. I was like, that that's that is just such a summary of things that we now deal with. like we can do anything and all of this stuff, but you know, I can still be kind of sad sometimes. So, we need to destroy all of society.
>> Yes, things are not absolute bliss all the time. Therefore, it's not good enough.
>> The utopia is here.
>> Yeah. Therefore, yeah, therefore, everybody needs to lose their rights until the utopia happens.
Yeah, that's a Okay, so the the study that I wanted to bring up, which I think does apply to um Tiel Dear's anecdote, uh never being happy. Um >> my god, that's a fortunate segue >> or having hostility at at the >> tired and wolffully unprepared.
>> I think not. Go ahead, Alison.
All right. So, um this this paper is called ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle. It's by um Wyatt's uh Young Height and uh Graham.
And um it's from 2019. And if you guys don't know what this study is, you'll probably remember all of the memes on it because it had this heat map. So it had these series of cons concentric circles and a kind of heat map of conservative versus liberals distribution of compassion.
And um essentially the uh the liberals uh so the the concentric circle started with at the center would be the self and then progressively at each stage. So each circle would represent a a step further. So immediate family, nuclear family, ch uh spouse, children, um uh extended family, friends, uh community, city, um uh state, country, you know, go progressively and then it would go to um the earth, uh the moon, you know, it would go progressively out uh Martian uh soil, that kind of thing.
as as you go out, you're getting further.
>> Expanding the border essentially, >> you're expanding the border, right?
>> Yeah. The perimeter.
>> So, and then so it was basically immediate and extended family, friends and community, strangers and distant humans, animal, insects and simple organisms, parramsia and microbes, plant life, ecosystems, alien life forms, all things in existence including rocks and inanimate are objects.
>> Bacteria, what bacteria? Yeah, bacteria's under microbes, right? That's that's even fur that's even closer. You know, you might be a >> you might be a um a life uh not not transphobic, but but uh um inanimate matter phobic there, Brian, if you if you're stopping your compassion at at things that >> perceive and have chemical reactions according to things. Yeah, that's a >> that that sounds very >> ends where RNA begins.
Exactly.
All right. So this that was the kind of so these co-entric circles and as you go outward the things become less human I suppose more less animal less life and just and then it just becomes everything and the heat map indicated that conservatives concern or at least what they expressed about their concern clustered in the immediate. So it was immediate and extended family, friends and community, stranger and distant humans, animals and then and then it starts to drop off at in insects and simple organisms, you know, plant life, parramia, eos, that kind of thing.
They started to drop off. They still had a little bit of concern, but it wasn't quite as um salient for them. Whereas the liberals showed the opposite. their heat map centered well outside of the human envelope and e plant life, ecosystems, alien life forms, rocks, and inanimate matter. So they they're they're caring about things that have no internal metabolism to really care about, which is interesting. It's a rich it's an interesting approach. And the way that this um this is uh the way that this was described uh yeah >> okay so is that maybe the liberal pattern expressed more compassion but there were some compounds that I saw in this that uh would suggest that maybe something else is happening.
All right so here here's where my my summary begins. In a landmark study, Wyatt set at all asked participants to distribute moral units across 16 categories of being from immediate family outward to animals, insects, microbes, plant life, rocks, alien life forms, and all things in existence.
Liberals distributed concern further outward than conservatives. The study may well it might have implied that this is greater compassion, but I have to confirm that. So, don't don't take that as gospel. The data doesn't necessarily support the idea that liberals are more compassionate because they're more compassionate to things all things in existence. The total moral allocation was identical between groups. The liberal signal spread across sensient and non-sensient living and inanimate real and hypothetical categories approaches zero per entity at the outer rings. Like if you care about everything, you're caring about nothing.
You cannot feel sacrificial compassion for a rock. Something else possibly is happening. Um the something else oxytocin research drew drew at all establishes that the hormone doesn't just generate in-group warmth. It produces a boundary with hostility on the other side. The standard assumption is that the ingroup is the point. But if the ingroup is defined by ideological performance rather than kinship or proximity, the boundary can be constructed and expanded infinitely and unilaterally. Every category added to the circle of required concern, microbes, rocks, alien life forms, adds any everyone who won't perform concern for it to the pool of legitimate targets for hostility. The objects of compassion are selected specifically for being unreachable. They make no actionable claim, require no real sacrifice, and cannot hold anyone accountable. Maximum moral identity return, zero delivery obligation.
The wider the circle, the larger the out group, the hostility can legitimately target. So the liberal distribution extents meaningful allocation to non-sensient, non-living, and hypothetical entities. You can't and you can't actually you don't do you can't do anything for them. like how do we how do we protect Martian rocks, right? H how do we h how do we protect things outside of the or cloud, right? H we don't even know really what's there. But you have to perform compassion for those things and if you don't do it properly, you're you're the bad person. So what this is functionally doing is creating the maximal targets for hostility, outgroup hostility.
Um, and it's it essentially the categor the way that liberals see compassion is performative and performative in a way that they can construct the absolute largest category of outgroup hostility >> and also feel really good doing it. and conservatives. And I I I hate to make this like a like a ide like a political breakdown because I'm sure conservative is doing a lot of work here. Um conservatives and liberals isn't because we all know what what they're they're they're getting more and more more and more concentrated. Conservatives think about compassion in terms of what would I personally sacrifice for? What can I be made accountable for? Whereas liberals are thinking, oh, maximum virtue signaling in order to create maximum hostil outgroup hostility.
And um that was my interpretation of this. And this this Donna Heroay Hath Hath Heroay Heroay right heroay Donna Heroay cyber feminism manifesto is another way of essentially doing that.
creating a situation where she has expresses compassion or a system of expressing expressing compassion that is so attenuated that it makes no claims on your actual like an any kind of expectations that you feel compassion you have you feel the drive to do something right to make something to help something to go volunteer at the soup kitchen um to make sure your family is provided for stuff like that that you do something because the compassion makes you and and people with properly functioning moral, you know, uh load stones like moral guidance, you know, you feel compassion, it compels you to want to do something.
Um so you do you so you constrain that to things you can do something about. In her case, again, she's attenuating the compassion into categories where you can't logically really do anything, >> right? But it makes you look good. So you >> But it makes you look good. Yes. So you I can say, "Oh, I love me some Plutonians out there. I think that they're they have it so bad and we should really care about their plight and talk about it and raise awareness, but I've never met a Plutonian before and I don't know how they would treat me. And I have there's no way that I could actually ever encounter one in my lifetime, >> you know, or be expected to." And they can. Yeah. But but I can say it and it makes me a better person than you.
>> So yeah.
>> Exactly.
>> Are you saying we need to make Pluto a planet again?
>> We do need to make Pluto a planet. Yes.
>> Speaking of >> They prefer the term Plutarchs. Oh, I didn't know. I'm sorry. Betty Adams is a better pro Pluto person than I am because she knows the the the appropriate nomenclature to like describe them. I made the terrible mistake of calling them Plutonians, but they're Plutarch.
>> Yeah, I'm done. I'm I'm I'm cancelled.
I'm losing my job now.
>> You're no longer a node in the social web.
>> Yeah.
>> Around propaganda, if I ever heard it, >> but that's the that's exactly it. you can produce. It's maximally performative with absolutely no claim on and and again it also maps to uh social or relational versus operational modality for relational modality. The signaling is the point I am signaling being compassionate.
Um, and also I am identifying the out groupoup because the out groupoup is anyone who won't join me in signaling compassion over things that have absolutely no claim on me and I h I don't feel any any desire to do anything for aside from signal for and then uh and then of course this is immediately anybody who's an operative thinker which is really what I think this is dividing between >> the conservative side is more operative The liberal side is more relational.
Anyone who's an operative thinker looks at that and says, "I'm not going to signal compassion because I consider it to be a claim on my time and my resources." So, if I'm going to signal compassion, it's going to be constrained to those things that I can actually give time and resources to realistically.
So the way that the conservatives were looking at this was what what are the things that I can realistically expend my time and energy and resources on what what could what could I realistically allow h to have a claim on my compassion and the liberals were like well let's let's signal compassion um and we want to have compassion towards things that will have absolutely no claim on us and also conveniently we'll exclude anybody who's thinking about these things in terms of having a claim right so it's the it's it's that and that was my theory of what's actually h or hypothesis sorry I don't know if it has predictive value at this point that's my hypothesis it's a little different and I think that this is what Donna Haroway is doing too she is constructing a sphere of things that you should that you should perform care about which functionally you have no ability to do anything about really or no or even if you do have any ability you have no intent to do it. It's all about signaling. It's all about your intent right and also it's the in uh in the negative it clearly identifies a out group that you can express legitimate hostility towards. Um, you know, I'll leave it as an exercise to the viewer how she's constructed her out group. Like what are the components of that out group? You know, I think that um I think uh pe people can make a rough guess, but anyway. So, shall we get into it?
>> Yeah.
>> Was this helpful? Like um >> Yeah. No, no, I mean it it Well, I mean I think so, but I mean it also isn't surprising. I mean, you and you and I talked a little bit about it earlier.
It's it's all about >> well, it's sort of like the inverse of what Mike describes as ooophobia.
>> Um, it's this or not the inverse but the flip side of it where you know oophophobia is like the hatred of your own the people closest to you, your own culture as it were. Um, this is like the almost a fetishization.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But it's not really like >> Yeah.
>> Go ahead. Yeah. Oh, no. I was going to say, but it's not really like a love or protective instinct of the foreign. It's more cuz it's not really there's no sacrifice involved. There's no risk.
You're just you're just saying, you know, I'm going to talk about this place that is really far away from me that doesn't affect me. Right. So, all right.
But anyway, let's uh yeah, let's continue the video. I'm not even I don't remember where we left off, but Well, I it remembered where we left off. We >> Am I reading the thing? I have that, too.
>> I'm reading the the cyber manifest.
>> Okay. Okay. Okay. Cyber manifesto. Yeah, I have it.
>> We could do video two. We could do video two.
>> I don't know. I don't know. I just don't remember what we did last. I just looked at I opened up the video and I have the document, too, but it's less interesting to look at. So, um >> well, let's do a bit of video then.
>> All right.
>> Tomb uh in various of the worlds that I care about. But basically I would I I insist just as situated knowledges does not mean local and it does not mean perspective companion species does not mean pets which isn't to say that pets uh isn't an honorable job uh for the other entities who live with us be they plant or animal uh uh animals who are >> so she's doing exactly the thing you were saying. See, she's saying she's saying that pets is like it's not it's like a slave term, >> you know, because they're they're beneath you. Like we should treat them as our peers. Even if you have plants in your house, >> right? They're you know, if you if you find that there's like a wasps nest on your porch, well, guess what? Those guys are your equal. You know, you should coexist with them. Like as much as like that's kind of what she's doing. She's basically she doesn't think that human beings are on a different level or that there's any hierarchies >> that are not man-made that are not man-made. Well, there is. Go ahead.
>> There is. The hierarchy is that if you're not willing to perform um >> the seiotics of the wasp or whatever.
Um, if you're not willing to express virtue signal about your compassion for wasps, then you are part of the out groupoup and you deserve maximal hostility.
All right, that's this is and this is the point. It's not about the compassion because if it was, they would constrain their objects of compassion to things you can actually do something about, right? you when you feel compassion. I don't know. I maybe I'm weird because I'm some kind of bizarre android, but when I feel compassion, I feel compelled to do something, right? Like I don't want to feel compassion. Like when I feel like something is wrong, I feel compelled to try to correct it.
And so this this just sitting in your truth about how compassionate you are is really alienating. And so if if they want me to express compassion for wasps, I'd be like, "Yeah, fine." In their own environment where they belong. Um but uh but that would be like the that would be like the content of that like constraining it. All right. So wasps doing their thing out in the forest is fine. Wasps being a danger to humans is not fine. Okay. All right. So that's how I would express my concern over that thing. Let's not let's not ex, you know, like let's not exterminate the wasps.
They can exist.
>> I mean, >> they shouldn't be in my my area, but they can exist far away from me. Sure.
>> Sure. And I guess if you could have like a human, >> but like other that just means we're territorial and maybe we should be see chill. So >> yeah.
>> Yeah. But the point is that they want they don't it's not about expressing compassion. No. Because all right, if you feel compassion for something, but you don't feel any desire to do anything.
I mean, I guess you're maybe a Buddhist monk and you're just practicing, you know, universal love, which fair, but I don't think that's what this is.
It's like there's no constraint on what you supposedly virtue signal your compassion over. But then again, that's not the point. The point is to create the maximum circle of outgroup targets that you can feel hostility for.
Right. That's the So, it's not about who you care about. It's about who you care about allows you to hate.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. Let's shall we I just want to say >> I uh I just want to say uh it's wonderful being right again.
>> Yep.
>> I don't know if TJ wants to add anything now or wait a bit.
>> Um yeah. No, I I'm I'm in agreement with what's been said. It was um it was actually one of the things that really annoyed me when that study came out because people kept putting up the heat map meme and they were just like, "Oh, look, liberals only care about all of this far away stuff." It's that's not how it works. The point of the heat map is basically where you put your line for cut off point.
>> So it's it's where you put your line and everything below that. So if you put your mark on like five, it means you care about 1 2 3 4 and five. If you put it at 10, it means you care about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10.
>> Like it it wasn't like if I put my mark on 10, that means I care about like 8 9 10 11 12 like within that area. That that's not how it worked. I think a lot of people got confused by the heat map nature of it.
>> And they thought that it it the liberal side being out there meant preference for the out group with no preference for the inroup, which is not what happened in that study. And it it did just show that you've got these people who will say that they have this compassion that this like all expanding compassion for everything.
It's quite obvious that actually in their day-to-day life they don't >> but it's just something that they like to be able to say. Like you ever deal with leftists online and all of this stuff you you always see them they'll always talk about oh well I have this thing called empathy.
I'm sure you've experienced that phrase several times when you talk to them.
They'll always like to talk about how they care about these things because they have some emotion that you don't have because I guess they think that if you're not politically on the left, you lack mirror neurons, I suppose, which you would die if if you didn't have them. But yeah, whatever. That that's a whole that's a whole other aside. Um yeah, it the the time when I saw that study, apart from all of the people horribly misrepresenting it, I just looked at it and thought, well, yeah, like we know that people on the left like to virtue signal about how widespread their caring is, but we also know that it's not because push comes to shove, you actually confront them on it in any sort of manner in which they have to put their money where their mouth is.
That falls away very quickly. Why do we have the concept of the nimi?
>> And why is nimiism >> so heavily associated with the left now?
>> Well, it's because >> I think that might be a a Britishism that you'll need to have defined a nimi.
>> Oh, not in my backyard. I think that's an Americanm.
>> Oh, is it? Well, I have never heard of that. But >> we don't refer to We don't tend to refer to things as yards. the normally gardens or fields or something.
>> Okay.
>> I don't know. Maybe it is a British ism.
I I >> maybe nim >> or nimi >> that doesn't work as well.
>> Nimi. Oh, no. But I I'm glad that you explained it because I was confused, which is my usual state, but um but continue. Yeah, it's that that's why that that sort of nimism has become very associated with these virtue signaling leftists because as soon as push comes to shove, okay, let's do let let's put you on the spot and say do the thing that you're saying you're going to do and that's when it shuts down. Like you've seen this hundreds of times online. the uh man on the street goes to left-wing pro-immigrant protest with a a clipboard and high vez viz vest on and is like, "Oh, oh, hi. I work for a charity looking to house uh like like find emergency housing for people who have uh fled war and have entered this country perhaps illegally. Uh can you can you put one of them in your home?
We're looking for anything. These people are they're very, you know, vulnerable and in need. Can you help?" And every single time all of them say no. It's like no no not right now. No, I don't have the space. And you can really push them on it as well. And it'll always be no. It's like well it doesn't actually have to be a bedroom. It just has to meet the legal requirement of a bedroom.
So anything where there is only one door and not part of a hallway sort of arrangement like that that counts as a bedroom. Like you might think that a room that you're not using is it isn't.
No, it is. We we can it can hit the legal definition of one and they'll just say no. No, no, can't can't do that. And of course, that one's particularly relevant at the moment in the UK because we recently had uh one of our up and cominging political parties, Reform UK, announced that they are uh planning on opening these migrant hotels. They're planning to attempt to commandeer as many hotels as possible in predominantly left-wing voting areas to move them to there in some sort of you get what you vote for kind of stunt. I have written an entire script for a video about that as a different topic. That's that's a whole other thing for another time.
Whether I get around to doing that or not, who knows? But that is kind of hitting a similar thing where they're saying, "Okay, we're going to hold you accountable for the virtues that you signal and you're getting the inevitable push back of, no, no, no, we we no, we don't want this. Why would you make us live to our principles?
That sounds terrible."
>> Yeah. Because this is it's not about the it's not about actual compassion. It's just about signaling compassion. And furthermore, it's not even about signaling compassion. It's about describing compassion in order to figure out who we hate.
>> So really, it's about hatred.
>> Really?
>> Finally, we're getting there. We're getting there. Okay.
>> All right. Uh, let let's play some more.
>> Our pets have a difficult job in no small part because members of our species are especially bad at learning what they care about as opposed to what we want. Learn >> You know what? You know how easy pets have it?
>> Do you have any idea? Like if I just let Jojo off the leash and I said, "Go, you're free now." He would be dead by tomorrow.
It would be dead by tomorrow. He lives to be 20 because he lives with me. I'm sorry. It's just ridiculous for her to say that. Maybe you're terrible to your plant, but I don't know your fish.
>> Not she's a collie.
>> She would drown her fish. That's how bad she is with pets. Um >> No, no, she has a collie dog, so she must and and they do discip So, so maybe in that narrow that narrow part of her life, she's an actual human being. But but okay, so there are some people who don't treat their pets well. that is understand like that calling them out is understandable. But for the most part, there's a reason why cats and dogs colonized our parental instincts cuz that's basically what they did.
>> Um >> you you know in Islamic countries they're >> they don't like dogs, right? Like as pets they she would she like sympathize more with that position?
>> Um just out of cur. Yeah, probably. It's foreign. It's foreign. So there's that.
But >> well, we're we're going to find out what her out group is. I think definitely she does it in the in the cyber manifesto.
So, okay, let's uh I'm I'm done.
>> Learning how my my dogs actually um think about, what they actually care about, what they like to do, what frightens them is a frankly a lifelong uh undertaking. And the mistakes that are made are both funny and shaming. the kinds of violence that we perpetrate on those who live closely with us as pets.
So, in no way do I want to dishonor the job of pets, but I want to insist that companion species does not mean pets.
Okay.
>> It's interesting that she frames what pets do as a job.
It's it's interesting because it reminds me what why I say that is because pets obviously people have them because they they get something out of it. They get a companion, right? But it's not like a human where you like you have a human companion to talk to them and do human things with, but pets are a little bit like they're like a step below in a way.
Like you can, you know, cuddle with them and that's it really. I mean, you basically just enjoy their company.
Maybe you teach them things and you do activities with them. You go on walks or whatever. But what pets do would not normally be considered work unless you unless you are like you're you do use your pets specifically for work. like if you own a bunch of livestock and you need like a hering dog to to do that or if you're a hunter or you know you work in some kind of like um I don't know law enforcement and you maybe I don't know if canines can k9 units own like they basically take their dogs home but unless they like they serve a specific function and that's like a job but I think in most cases people have pets because they like having pets but the reason why I'm saying all this is Because it reminds me of when when women say that being a wife and a mother is work. Like it's emotional labor. Like it's unpaid labor. They describe it as a kind of work. It's a very interesting uh worldview because I see this being sort of like described in the same way. Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. It's I think it's exactly what she's setting up. It's also, you know, why she uses the term the violence that we perpetrate against our pets. I don't think she's actually talking about people who like beat their animals or something like that. She's she's just setting up uh >> your pet doesn't live in a utopia like granted to them by you. Therefore, you are committing violence.
>> Right. So, I'm seeing that's what I'm saying. I'm seeing like these parallels like she's using the same kind of language that someone like Manifestelle would use to describe being like in in a relationship with a man. like it's risk and it's labor. And so she's saying the same thing having a pet. Pets are at risk of violence and they do a job which means they're getting, you know, and and she might even say it's unpaid even though we house them and we feed them and we clean them and we give them shots and take them to the vet and everything else. Um, but I'm just say I don't know if you guys see that like this kind of look goes in line with what Allison was saying too.
um and Tiel Deer were saying about you know the sort of heat map thing where she's basically making it all about about I guess about as equal as she can even and she would say remember she would say this about a plant you know if there was a plant in the house you you the plants are treated poorly and we're violent to them and they have a job right so >> yeah she'd probably also say it about the microbes in our intestines >> and our skin >> our gut flora you know the emotional labor of the E. coli.
>> Um, and uh, and probably also the geog geological formations underneath your house. And I mean, I wanted to to just dig back into what Teal Deer was saying that that the the liberals are um assigning equal compassion and concern for, you know, every um like the the the immediate family, their friends and family, uh Parramia, ecology, um space rocks. Um, so the the what I wanted to drill down on that is when you do that, when you assign equal cons weight to your your wife and parameia in the dirt, how do you operationalize that? Like how do you express equal concern to those things?
Um, and basically the the the you know you your concern for your wife has like behavioral content. It has specific actions, specific costs, specific failures that are allegible and accountable. Um, concern for parramsia has no behavioral content by definition.
And there's no action that constitutes helping a parramium in any moral mor like any meaningful sense. So if you assign moral equivalent moral units to both um you're not equalizing them. It inflates the parramia allocation to a number that sounds meaningful while the wife allocation gets crowded by categories that make no real claim. Um the number assigned to your wife now shares a scale with rocks. So the scale is broken. And the practical whole effect is that if someone asks how much do you care about your wife versus a stranger versus a microbe and you assign similar numbers to all three, you haven't demonstrated equal concern.
you've demonstrated that the measurement instrument has been detached from every behavioral reference. The number the number means nothing because the categories aren't comparable units of moral obligation. So the real question is they've discovered this finding and what they actually have discovered is that liberals do not use the term the way conservatives do. Conservatives use it in reference to behavior. Liberals don't seem to conceive of compassion.
Like if if you can literally say, "Yes, I treat I am as compassionate to my wife as I am to the microbes in the ground."
What does that mean behaviorally?
Right? So they've divorced the idea of compassion from realistic appraisal of behavior.
Um, so a conservative who assigns high concern to family and near zero to parramia is reporting something operationally real. A liberal assigning substantial concern to both is either reporting something false or reporting something that has no operational meaning. Okay, so this is either junk science or it's saying something very unflattering about liberals which is means that they use the term compassion and they do not know what it means.
It's doing something completely like something that should be fairly unrecognizable to any human being with any kind of custodial architecture, which should be most of us except for the sociopaths.
Like we should all have an understanding that compassion requires a behavioral reference um and realize that we cannot do that towards everything in existence and everything in existence doesn't really want it from us. So why would we even presume? So yeah. Um but I just wanted to address that cuz I I feel like maybe when I read out what my my summary that I created that there was the implication that I was saying that liberals don't also feel compassion for friends and family. Um or at least say they do. But the point is that when you actually drill down into that, you realize that the word that they're using doesn't have a behavioral component. Otherwise, they wouldn't use it in this way. Like most people don't don't demonstrate equal concern for their immediate family members or whatever their polycule, the liberal polycule. They don't express immediate the same immediate concern for their uh gender fluid trans other kin as they do for random microbes in a clump of dirt.
And the fact that they don't have that constraint on their thinking implies something about how they're using the term. That's what I meant. Okay. Sorry for the digression. Okay.
That said, I'm going to talk about my pets.
Okay. In particular, I'm going to talk about Cayenne, my agility companion of about a dozen years. Uh, she died about 10 years ago. And there we are studying together. Uh, I have a dog on positive clicker. I have a book on positive clicker training in my hand while Cayenne naps.
This is literally I just want to point out this is literally the sum total of her positive contribution to humanity.
And it, you know, like if if she was just a dog trainer, I think that the >> she did she invent the clicker thing?
>> No, I don't think she did invent it, but maybe she she created a system of clicker training that and I given that >> she was reading a book about it. I >> Oh, yeah. Duh. Sorry.
Sorry. Go ahead.
>> Reads her own book, which I mean, I wouldn't put that past some people.
>> That's true.
>> But but her her work as a dog trainer is literally the only operative thing she does with her life. Everything else appears to be social web signaling with no actual contribution to anyone. I'm sorry, social web signalers, but constantly sitting around signaling your importance to other people and being seen gets nothing done.
>> Here's a thought I just had now that you are mentioning this. Are we living in a time where we actually like not just where we value social web signaling more than operative thinking and operative behavior and not just like in our you know social space but even the way that we run our society.
>> The answer is do you want the answer?
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. 100%. That explains why like our our infrastructure is you know slowly eroding in the background. Yeah.
>> And I have been tracking the the veins of this throughout uh um western society um through this this modality. But yes, this this pops up in infrastructure maintenance. It pops up in US naval procurement actually pops up in silver like as I've gone through at length. It probably pops up in all commodities markets. This kind of thinking is everywhere and it is destroying the lean mass of every society that that has allowed it to overgrow, shall we say. I'm not going to say that it's completely useless or it's completely destructive, but it is now because it's acting like an invasive species and everywhere it overgrows, it chokes out any kind of circulation to any kind of muscle. So the things that a society needs to run, a military that isn't that can actually procure things for itself, right? a um and can can focus on operational metrics rather than DEI metrics. Um an infrastructure that can repair itself because it's not social web signaling green technology while it allows its pipes to degrade beyond um to uh to degrade beyond safety measures um beyond capacity to keep pumping barrels of oil, right? and and other issues with infrastructure projects. So everything becomes social signaling the operative the operative layer and this is the big problem with the social web network uh social web it just assumes the operative layer is infinite infinitely durable and does not need to be maintained. It just assumes it's in the back. This is the big toxicity about it.
>> And and there are I mean there are some relational thinkers like we were talking to them on Wednesday uh Dar Daria and uh uh Red Pill Derby and they can come to the same conclusions that we do. I'm like I'm more I'm actually in the middle honestly. Um and uh they can come to the same conclusions somebody who's working in an operative frame through social reading. But the problem is that women who do that are constantly being prayed upon and destroyed by the spiders, like the sociopathic women who use social web signaling to destroy other women, to torment them, and to silence them. We were talking to a spider on Wednesday.
>> I won't say anymore.
>> Okay.
>> But yeah, she she that's but that's what they do. And so the women who can actually use social reb reading to come to an understanding that oh wait the operative de dimension needs to or the operative layer needs needs to be heard too needs to be seen. they get silenced by the predatory extractors and um so yeah but but and because of that it's not just social web it's the fact that this current uh arrangement means that the social webs we're dealing with have no accountability. So if you have accountability for the women in the social web, you have ways of controlling the spiders. That's why spiders always go after accountability because they don't want to have to answer to anyone, right? And they they can just keep doing their thing, keep creating consensus through their manipulations without any control, any kind of custodial control over their behavior.
So then comes incredibly destructive.
So, it's not just social webs and relational webs. They're poisoned relational webs that are actively destructive because they're not being controlled by, I don't know, the the Christian grandma who who goes and volunteers at the so the soup c soup kitchen uh every Sunday or whatever.
They're being controlled by sociopaths who don't care about anybody.
And that's what happens when you don't have any accountability for women at all.
And um yeah, and then they they seem to pair up with uh their counterpart among men. And we get extractive regimes that uh financialize everything and destroy.
All right. Okay. I'm off my my uh podium. I uh hope that you can get something valuable out of that. But >> yeah, that's good. Yeah, that's what I thought. It's a good it's a good way to talk about like this because you're seeing as a pattern, you know, people can be on the lookout for.
>> I will try to put into action what I've learned in this book and she will embarrass me mightily by having entirely different ideas about what I thought I had just said. Uh >> so you're basically violent and cruel to your dog. I understand. So we are trying to learn to communicate in that early picture and then in the subsequent picture I would like to say we are something at the height of our achievements in the sport of agility. We trained for thousands of hours in agility in order to have what we call in the sport a good run which is to say >> why do you have to uh what do you >> what if your what if your dog didn't want to do that? Did was did you just like like if it sounds like you're basically just like some Arab slave owner that forced his Kenyon to like run a marathon. I'm I'm just I'm just anyway >> I mean no I'm just use I'm just looking at her logic. She's you know the the how how can the dog know what if the dog just wants to like lay around and eat snacks and you know cheeses.
>> What's the dog doing? Yeah.
>> Yeah. What the dog doing? Anyway, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Alison. What were you going to say?
>> Oh, well. Um, this is this is probably the content that's the least offensive.
Like I said, if she had just kept herself to dog trainer, she would probably be a net a net benefit to humanity. Um, but um, unfortunately, she didn't. Uh, >> yeah.
>> Do we want to go through the the cyber manifesto? Because this is >> Well, we can Yeah, she's just talking about her dog. Well, do do you remember what paragraph we left off at at the cyber manifesto? I thought we >> didn't even start reading it.
>> No, we did. We did. We did. Right, Dilia? We did read some of this.
>> I don't remember. As far as I know, uh, we just said this exists and we should probably do something about it. I don't remember reading any of it.
>> All right. Well, this is Oh, you know what? I'm looking at psychoanalytic feminism, not the cyber feminism manifesto. That's the thing. Okay, let me get that out. Um, >> yeah, go ahead. Cyber feminist manifesto.
>> The cyber the cyborg manifesto. I can I can read some stuff out while you're doing that if you want or we can do this after the frame framework analysis. So, >> that or I talk about feminist dog training because that exists.
Feminist. Sorry.
>> Feminist dog training.
>> Feminist dog training. It's a thing.
>> Okay. That that just >> that gave me a >> You got to prevent all that dog park rape, you know.
>> Well, yeah. Cuz um you know that um well, it's a few years ago now. There was actually an article published in uh Catalyst um feminism theory and technocience. There's a journal about that and the article is feminism, fuzzy sciences and inter species intersectionalities, the promise and perils of contemporary dog training. Uh it's by someone called Harlon Eugene Weaver and it is literally like we need feminist dog training. Uh you need to better understand the the needs and the wants of your dog and you have to truly understand uh if the dog actually wants to be trained. uh which uh this far away woman has obviously uh completely uh sidestepped. She just went in uh trained the dog, actually had no she committed violence against the dog, she didn't actually know if the dog wanted to be trained.
>> Yeah, we have to have a conversation about consent. Yeah, she just presumed that the dog wanted to be trained and because the dog responded to the training, I guess she just took that as uh nonaffirmative nonverbal consent, which as we all know you're not allowed to go with anymore. Um, apparently the dog does actually have to tap the would you like to know more button in order to signal its desire to be trained to do certain things. But yeah, this is actually something that feminists have been doing. Like you actually have to try to somehow figure out if the animal is consenting to training because otherwise you are committing violence upon it and uh engaging in class warfare in the same way that the feminists defined it. You know, men and women extracting wealth, extracting money.
>> I got it. I got it up right here. A little summary.
>> Violence against women. and they they use the the rape and the violence to extract wealth from women who sit around pressing buttons on the automated white goods that oppress them. It's the exact same thing is if you train a dog without getting it to somehow press the consent button that means that you're committing class warfare against the animal because you're extracting wealth you're extracting wealth or extracting resources extracting productivity from from the dog. Yeah, >> we have a we have a vote for feminist dog training.
I'm I'm really hoping it uh it's not as horrifying as I I think it might be, but >> I did a live stream about it eight years ago. You can go and look at it. It is just called TLDDR, Feminist Dog Training. It's a research stream, so it's not fantastic in quality. It's just me reading it. I do lose my mind a little bit uh some way through it because the author just keeps using the word fuzzy. It just defines everything.
There are fuzzy boundaries. There is fuzzy. This this thing is fuzzy and all of these things are fuzzy. And throughout this entire thing, I just keep saying I I can see why you're using the term fuzzy. I I know where this is going. And then the other shoe drops and does and the author does actually write >> these things are fuzzy and this is and there's a delightful irony in the fact that dogs are also fuzzy and I lost my [ __ ] mind when I read that like it would I really just lost my [ __ ] at the paper. I was just like I KNEW THIS IS WHY YOU WERE using the word fuzzy. You are not witty. I just I I lost my [ __ ] mind.
>> Get it? Yeah. Yeah. like why does this exist? Why are these people allowed to write in the way that they do?
>> But uh we we could look that up.
Feminist dog training if you if you really wanted to. That could be another thing, but it is slightly horrifying and very frustrating.
>> Well, I have something on the screen here at Gail Academic One File.
Feminisms, fuzzy sciences, and inner species intersectionalities. The Promises and Perils of Contemporary Dog Training by Harlon Eugene Weaver, spring 2017.
Uh, yeah, >> that's the one.
>> That's probably the one. Yeah, >> it is.
>> Yeah. So, there it is. We have it. Um, I mean I And then I also have the Cyborg Manifesto by Donna Harowway. Um, we could do that one and and and save this this gem for later. I would need to >> dog training needs its own thing because it's >> Yeah, >> it's definitely far a field from what we're doing only vaguely related by the fact that Donna Haroway likes dogs and has trained dogs.
>> Okay. The feminist manif or the cyber manifesto is 15,000 words. So, >> we don't have to read the whole thing.
Maybe there's like a Holy [ __ ] Do you want some?
>> Are there any choice quotes?
>> You know, you know, you know why? Do Okay. Do do you guys know why these kinds of things are always extremely long? Like I've noticed that when people make videos about a topic, let's say they're they're talking about writing, it could be about writing, and you have someone write about like how to tell uh I don't know, good stories. Maybe they're pushing back on more progressive elements. That that video is like maybe 15 minutes long, 20 minutes long. And then the responses to it from leftists are like an hour. Do you know why they're so long? Do you know why? And I'm not asking cuz I don't know. Cuz I think I do. But do you know why it takes so long for them to make their argument, if any argument?
>> I'm just asking the audience.
>> Oh, okay. I was going to say pseudo intellectual goping to make themselves appear very smart >> when they are not. They over complicate things in order to make them appear impenetrable when they're actually not.
>> They seem to think that everyone getting bored by their repetitive nonsense is them winning the argument.
>> Yeah, exactly. It's like they either put you to sleep or confuse they dazzle you with their wordcraft or they piss you off and when you get angry and like mute them, they declare victory because they got you mad because they've been so obtuse and so frustrating and vague and they you can't actually have a conversation and that's frustrating. So, all right. Um, >> we need to we we need to domestic violence laws because there are >> there there isn't a spate an epidemic of violence of leftists beating bushes and it needs to end.
>> Uh Allison, what were you going to suggest? Okay, I can I can find uh three areas that we can >> How about choice choice quotes or something like >> that's a little more difficult, but >> Well, the thing is Yeah, cuz I want to take this gigantic This isn't a word salad. This is a word salad bar. This is this is a word all you can eat >> um buffet and uh and it's all slop, too.
It's like all porridge.
>> All right. So, >> and much like a colored bar, it lacks meat.
>> Yes, >> it lacks any meat. All right. So, we could go to fractured identities, which is the purest uh moral circle material.
So, it's relates most to the moral circle that I talked about, and it contains the explicit construction of the ingroup by a loyalty test. Um, the dismantling of prior feminist categories. Uh, the sand of all women of color passages where actual women function as rhetorical instrument with zero behavioral output towards them.
>> Oh my god.
>> So, we really care. We really care about the brown women. We don't do anything for them except care about them.
>> Non innocent of a category woman argument is the loyalty test. Okay. So that's got the biggest amount of moral circle content which would be which would relate to the um liberal versus conservative how they construct.
>> Yeah. The the way that Okay. Well, >> I I would I mean I don't mean to >> I could I could give you the other options. I got we got theatics of domination which is the best like cognitive modalities material which um apparently it contains an infamous binary chart.
>> That could be that could be fascinating.
I'm just giving you the tour options, Brian.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um >> the charts left column items are interchangeable. The right column items are interchangeable. And the chart is sub is substit sub substituted later by other taxonomies. So basically the infformatics of domination is her just making taxonomies.
Um all right. And uh and then there's the cyborgs a myth of political identity.
um contains not of woman born the explicit refusal of mother infant bonding and the prescriptive program for cyborg sexuality.
Uh this is where the uh the uh disillusion dis dissolving of male female and family is stated as a positive program. Um, all right. So, uh, yeah, that those are the those are the three those are the three potential tour options, I guess.
The infamatics of not the informatics of domination, but fractured identities.
>> Uh, which which has the content related to what we were talking about initially.
>> Go there.
>> Yeah. So, I should search that term then.
>> Are those three tour options all within the cyborg manifesto?
>> Yes. Uh, I see.
>> Are they not?
>> Perhaps be a little controversial because I am still tired from doing stuff today. Might it be an idea to postpone the Cyborg Manifesto until like next week or the week after? Because I'd like to read it in totality before going through that if it's okay. We can still do little bits of it, but I just I >> I like to try and be as informative as I can, and I think I can do that better if I read the whole thing because I can reference >> other bits throughout the paper as we go.
>> Okay, fair enough. Do you want to do the uh fuzzy? No, we can't.
>> All right. Should we just uh >> we just call this this this this this show a squib? Well, well, we laid out I laid out the the oxytocin or not the oxytocin, but the the moral circles idea.
>> No. Yeah, we definitely talked about that.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, we can continue with the uh Harowway video at >> Oh, yeah. We can do that, too.
>> Still in the middle of doing that.
>> That's true. We are. Okay. Let's go back to this. We'll we'll do Cyborg Manifesto proper then. Next time. Yeah.
>> Uh Divine Duck Divine Deina Duckworth says, "Never accept the their distortions of the English language."
100%. I have a series on that. But anyway >> knows how you have somehow learn practiced the discipline learned the game uh subjected yourself the the discip discipline of the game sufficiently that you can run and release something new in the world that it can flame into the open. It can flame into something that is more than functional. Something you didn't and couldn't train but also didn't and couldn't do without the training. So that the way the discipline enables the flaming run into what I call the open, not Haidiger's open, but the open of play and of invention and of letting happen in the world what was truly not in the world before. I would like to say that once in a great while Kai and >> So how many mushrooms did this woman do in the >> Yeah, I know. Remember guys, she's talking about trading her dog. This is like what anybody who owns a dog has to spend some time doing. I don't know if you know. Did you know you were actually inflaming your dog or whatever she said?
>> No, but her but her audience is dazzled, dude. Dazzled. Okay.
>> Well, she's um she's performing being in but out at the same time. is very very >> this is what Lovecraft referred to when he was talking about cosmic horrors that would drive you insane. It wasn't like some kind of like you know an indescribable thing coming out of the of the dark furthest reaches of the galaxy.
It was like a a hippie chick from the 60s talking about training dogs >> would run.
>> It's just such a weird way of phrasing it. It's like, oh, it it bursts forth into the flames. The flame the things that were not here before that were greater than the Okay, so you train an animal, right? The animal can do things on command that it previously wouldn't have because you've educated it.
Okay. Right. There's something to be said for being greater than the sum of its parts there in so far as you've expanded the ability of both the animal and therefore yourself. But do we have to do this pseudo intellectual the flame is coming forth. You are inflaming everything. It is so do we really need to do this >> like Prometheus.
You >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's just again this just seems to, you know, pseudointellectual semi-filosophical hippie-dippy bollocks just trying to make things sound incredibly profound and meaningful when they're actually not.
>> Yes. And she's speaking probably getting paid thousands of dollars to stand in front of an audience and spew this stuff. And yet, >> although I will say I do prefer my dog trainers to be absolutely flaming, >> just like Caesar, they are the best trainers.
>> Like it even an orgasm. Uh >> what did you just What is this woman dog pailed? Let me go back. She said something about >> once in a great while Cayenne and I had a good run and there is nothing in the world like it. Even an orgasm. Uh now it is there's also nothing in the world like it. God, I knew it was going to go there. I knew it. I could feel it the instant. Oh god.
>> Dog training is better than sex when it goes right.
I'm sorry, but okay.
>> Not really.
>> In fact, >> all I'm going to say is your husband is apparently very underkilled, although you're not wearing a wedding ring, so that might explain some things.
>> Uh, yeah. I feel like there's a reason you have all those dogs.
>> Can we not like >> Can we just have like sex and pets? just keep them completely separate.
>> Yeah, they can be two different things.
I I I like the idea of that.
>> Yeah. And yet, I knew that watching this, as soon as she brings up her dogs, there would be some crosscontamination between those two categories.
And >> it's almost like the these feminist types, they they just I don't know. It seems like they sexualize everything all the time. like they see them they see women as nothing more than that and they do it and they blame men for doing it even though men don't do it to the same degree in my opinion.
>> Anyway, >> I I know that she's just saying that oh it feels really good like when you get something but did you really have to just compare it to something sexual? Was that necessary?
>> No.
No. Unless, of course, again, you have no other no other means to do it. And especially at your age, too. Extra weird. But okay, I'm aware that I make horrendous sex puns and terrible masturbation jokes very frequently. I was withholding one earlier about doing spitups as a means of declaring war against the uh bacteria in your large intestine and then doing a little bit where I said I went with sit-ups because the other one because the other option of that war was an oversized dildo. I resisted the urge to do that.
>> But she just went there anyway.
Yeah.
>> And and in a and in a in a situation where you just like like I said, you have the category pets, we have the category sex, let's just keep a nice wide chasm between them.
>> Give it a wide birth.
>> Yeah. Give it a wide pun intended.
>> Let's just keep them separate. All right. Just that that's good. Um you know that that that would be my preference. Uh but you know Yeah. Uh, and again, I knew that this was going to happen, but let's let's uh I think I've I've stated my concern. Let's let's move on.
>> Let's see. Let's see. Yeah, >> there's a miscommunication and it all falls apart. And there you are looking like each other like you idiot. you know, uh, when I get in her got in her way in an entry to the weave poles when she somehow when I somehow my shoulder was saying one thing, my feet were saying another, my mouth was saying a third, and Cayenne had a fourth idea and we were toast on the course. Uh, we were ripped apart and you felt the rip in the fiber of your being. Uh, it's that kind of playing the game with passion and intensity with each other. It's not an innocent sport. There's plenty of of uh there's failure, of course. There's also the kind of mistake in which you harm each other. More likely, the human harms the dog. But agility was one of the places where I learned what I meant by the open. Okay? And that experience of somehow flaming with each other into something that didn't exist on the planet before. Call it the joy of play.
>> Didn't exist on the planet before. Oh my god. Okay. I think we're I think we're moving away from the dog thing. She was using it to make another argument and I see that she's got the clicker. So maybe she's going to change topics now.
Okay. So the companion species are my litter mates.
We are moving right along. Honest to God. Okay. Now also in my litter are the um creatures of contemporary uh biomolec uh molecular biology and I introduced them through Lind Lynn Randolph's paintings. Remember she did cyborg the cyborg painting that I showed before. She also did the Annunciation of the second coming.
>> What? Oh god, this [ __ ] modern art. I hate this stuff so much. What is that?
Is that a rat wearing a crown of thorns in a room full of eye? I'm just describing this for people who might be listening. So, there's two paintings.
One is a rat in a box. It looks like with a crown of thorns and there in the box are like walls and there are little slits open and there are eyes looking at the rat like almost like the the rat's being watched by multiple human eyes.
And then the other painting is of a statue looks like it's supposed to be a man um and there is a woman holding his arm, an angel of some kind.
Uh perhaps because she has wings and they're standing on I don't know like a farm. I like they're giants. I have no idea what's going on. So this is called uh modest witness at second millennia.
Female man meets enco mouse.
Okay.
>> Okay. Um, yeah. The only thing that I can bring to that is Enco Mouse is a thing, but it it's like a specific strain of lab mouse. That's all I really know about it. That that that's probably what that is with all of the eyes and some sort of reference to the the mouse being watch. Why do I even know what why do I even know what an mouse is? It's just a really stupid bit of trivia to have somewhere in my brain.
But that >> it looks like the mouse has like arms and legs that are human.
>> Yeah, there's probably some bizarre pseudointellectual semi philosophical wafflebased bollocks going on there.
>> Of course.
>> Yeah. Welcome to modern art where the people can do like modern art is not art anymore. Modern art is creative writing because of the massive essay that explains what the [ __ ] is going on on the canvas because you need it.
>> Yes. Well, if it even involves a canvas, it often is like, you know, did you see that one uh art piece which is like a naked woman that's hanging inside of a giant bell? She's acting as the the the part of the bell that makes that hits the sides and makes the makes the bell ring. And there's a it's a real woman.
and she's hanging upside down inside of a bell and she's swinging around in there. And I I I guess it's some kind of like women are objects type of message cuz like if because these things are essays, they have to say the right things. So they're almost always like, you know, leftist [ __ ] talking points, feminism, capitalism, bad, whatever. Like it's always the same stuff and they're just finding new ways to say the same thing. and they completely saturate art to the with all that [ __ ] to the point where no one knows what's beautiful anymore and and because all of it's garbage and so they think that's what art is and I have to tell them no there's you know go to a museum and go to like the old sections you'll find the good stuff so oh it's just it's hell she's a clapper of the bell okay it's called a clapper you you know that then you know that one okay >> okay so that that art piece is just a woman's thinly veiled suspension BDSM fetish that she wants to inflict on the rest of the world. That's what I >> Yeah, it's an attention thing. Yeah.
Allison, what were we going to say?
>> When Whenever you're ready, I could probably go through this the the actual purpose of this lecture in terms of social web signaling and uh what she's really doing. Um >> Sure.
>> But uh >> well, you want to listen? No, I want to listen to the rest. I want to know what this is about. These paintings since I described them. Um, do you do you do we have a time constraint at all or?
>> Yeah, I should be done by three. So, >> because I got to go pick up Lindsay. So, like I got about 40 minutes, a little less.
>> Oh, okay. All right, then. Uh, >> let's continue.
>> All right. uh and Uncle Mouse. The enunci both of these paintings are um figurations are are depictions of the barely secularized Judeo-Christian that is to say Christian uh narratives that inform most of our politics, most of our philosophy and most of our sciences.
Perhaps that's slightly overstated but not by much. Okay. uh the uh uh the the sense that our sciences somehow issue in issue issue into the f is uh uh convey us into the future. Issue the uh bring the future into being that our sciences are those almost transcendent practices for future creation and in the mode of human exceptionalism for resourcing all the world into the projects of man. uh both of these paintings, the the the annunciation of the second coming in relation to digital culture and anko mouse in >> wait this is the annunciation of the second coming the angel with the statue and oh that's like a circuit board at the bottom I see if you hadn't told me what it was called I wouldn't have put it together of course um okay yeah that's okay >> relation to biomed culture uh we have They're the first the first patented animal in the world. She She is patented. It's not the process that was patented. It was ugly.
>> Good lord, that's ugly.
>> She was >> what?
>> Well, that artwork.
>> How dare you, Allison. How dare you?
It's subjective. You have no right to call it ugly.
>> All right. Well, I'm not particularly fond of surrealist artwork, but the composition is just terrible.
Well, I don't even know that it's trying to be surreal. I mean, I guess in a way like maybe that person was a fan of like >> Yeah, but at least had good compositions like composing the parts in a way that that was interesting. What what what I'm seeing there is bad design. Okay, keep going.
>> Okay.
>> Model for breast cancer breast cancer research. Um, and she is, of course, a suffering servant in the mode of Isaiah or in the mode of the Christ. She wears the crown of crown of thorns. She's in a kind of cultian observation chamber.
>> I don't think people who get breast cancer are suffering for anybody, though.
>> No, >> that's >> Well, but again, they're they're the animals are on the same level as us. So, >> basically, a lab rat is essentially Jesus Christ. So, >> okay. But but uh but the the the women with breast cancer like just because you say it's suffering that that's such cargo cult thinking. Oh this this entity is suffering therefore it is equivalent to Jesus Christ. It's like no that I think the uh there's there's more components to that than just the suffering as a lay like as some you know again a filthy secularist.
Um I suspect okay let's continue.
Why? Why exactly? Okay. So, lab mice are the the new messiah, I guess.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> You know, I didn't know. They're suffering for us.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> They are as such they are the new messiah figures because of course they are.
>> Have you heard about our lord and savior 247- beta 3?
Uh, is that a space rock?
>> That's that's a mouse reference somewhere. I guess there's probably some means of categorizing mice.
>> Yeah. No, I >> I also think the artist was not inspired by Salvador Dolly, but by Renee Margaret McGreet, the guy the guy who painted the uh it's like the guy in the bowler hat with the apple in front of his face. You know those paintings?
>> Mhm.
>> Not and I mean Mcgreet is I like his paintings. They are I think they're wellmade. I think this person is a not good but anyway >> of many colors. The kind of global observation.
>> Yeah. And Jesus died of breast cancer.
That's right. Yes.
The the mouse was killed because he told the truth, not because they needed to test a cure for cancer.
>> Chamber. I mean, look, all I'm going to say is just remember they hated the rats first.
>> Yes.
>> Both of these are paintings that exhibit uh I think the outrage and the scandal of human exceptionalism that all of the world uh is made uh is resource for the projects of humanity. Now, I don't >> So, so she is antihuman. That's what that sounds like. I mean she would call it like live treating humans as just as expendable or just as you know I guess um valuable as any other life anywhere or even unlife. I mean she did talk about the planet itself uh earlier. So >> think of myself as either a humanist or a posthumanist. I do think of myself as a posthuman exceptionalist. In that sense, what I what I try to affirm uh is the living and non-living multiecies living and non-living reciprocal induction that brings into being what is, what can be, what still can be, what might be. a kind of posthuman exceptionalism that is relentlessly finite, committed to not knowing, to making mistakes, to falling apart, to tearing apart, and to staying with the trouble. The kind of postthuman exceptionalism that we need within which, frankly, the discourses and disciplines of humanism like international law courts uh and the rest are absolutely necessary ongoing apparatuses. So, it's not anti-humanist.
What it is is anti-human exceptionalist.
>> All the mushrooms, man. All of them.
Every single one.
Posthuman exceptionalism.
I I I'm sorry, but like and and she literally says this is not something I am saying because we need to do something about it. that we I have no interest in a solution. I just want to talk about the problem that I have identified and I'm I'm telling you it's like her job is not even to identify a problem. Her job is to create one and then convince you that it's real but then stop you from actually saying okay so then what do we do? Because that would be that's we can't go there.
That's why she said it's okay that we have like things like like laws and courts because otherwise you know because no other creature on earth has legal systems and constitutions and Magna Cartas and you know concepts of property and such. No other no other organism. They're all just like tribal and they're eating each other or they're [ __ ] each other and that's it. And what whoever survives survives. So since we don't operate that way, then we have no business thinking that we're better, but we need all the stuff that we've made to keep going. And I think it's okay that we don't know why that is. But we should know that that's something we shouldn't really be happy about.
Take that, humans.
I'm not against you, but I offer no. And it's like, look, I maybe it's because I'm a dude, but if you don't have like if you don't want to talk about solutions or something to do, I I can't I can't work with that. Like it Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> No, it it is literally because you're a man.
>> Yeah, >> I figured >> it is um Yeah, there's there there's uh fundamental differences and I this is this is one of the most consistent findings. So, I've been re I've been going through literature for over four centuries and as many of you may know and if you're interested in reading more uh badgeration.online um and I've been going through literature and consistently men sort into men and women sort into two cognitive modalities operational and relational reading or relational modalities. So operational is these are the inputs. This is the mechanism. These are the outputs. That's what men usually think. They want deliverables. They want actions. They want to know what what a what a causes what you know you know what follows from A. Um what creates outcomes C what you know that operations on reality or even like mental material uh like philosophy. Women read the social information. So people's positions, hierarchy, the social uh relational web readers are very hierarchy is very important to them. Um authority signifiers of authority very important to them. Uh emotional states, people's personal alliances, uh what resources they have access to also very important. What resources they don't have access to. And they take all of this kind of social relational information and from it they map a relational topography or you know we use the term social web just as like a simpler way of defer but it is a relational topography and they have fundamentally different processes that they're engaging in with outcomes that um you know aren't I don't think are as legible to people who operate in an operative modality. And just to get back to the literature, this is completely biodal. Like I think biodal is the right way of putting it. Men cluster very strongly in operative. Women cluster very strongly in relational. So far there have only been two men who get to social relational or so relational web.
And that is Henry James and Prrowse. I think I pronounce that. I apologize guys. And there has been one woman who's published who isn't social reader. That's Anne Rand. And she occupies a completely third category of philosophy wonk. So um they're completely on their own little island.
There not a lot of them. Um but yeah, so it sorts very cleanly. And there's another diagnostic that I've been looking at which is custodial monitoring. And that sorts everybody.
Women do not custodially monitor. Men do I don't know if you guys are interested that's beyond again you want more information badger nationonline >> uh do you want know understand custodial monitoring or am I taking you too squirreled or we squirreling too much squirreling too close to the sun >> um well I mean I should get through some more of this but I feel like at least what you're saying has like some kind of foundation of reality and this woman is just >> just sharing What I'm doing is I'm translating the activities of the social of the social web >> uh thinker into into language that I hope an operational thinker can understand and then comprehend what it is they're actually doing because the project that this is that Donna Haroway is engaging in is simply identifying outgroup targets. That's it. She is she's basically painting um targets on people, institutions, ideas. Uh I don't know if she also extends this to non-human life, but whatever. She's just painting targets on it and being like, "Yeah, let's blow these [ __ ] up." That's all she's doing at the end of the day. And all of the uh the posturing about who she cares about is justification for why it's moral.
that and that's one of the like that's one of the big functions or at least one of the things that social web does is it enter identifies the out group and then elicits enough aggression and hostility towards it to annihilate it and that's what they're basically playing at right now and I know it's funny but when you understand what's underlying it it's a little less funny it's more sinister >> but I mean I could go through the analysis of all that or we could listen to her some more I guess I just really want to get this out so people understand what it is she's doing and why it's not a good thing. Because again, when she identifies these targets, these targets get silenced. And when you're and she's well beyond silencing cis cis c s c s c s c s c s c s c s c s c s c sis hatet white men but when you silence that category of person and I want I might want to add to that that it's not just cishat white men that end up getting silenced because black men are the cishat white men of black people and Latino men are the cishat white or men of Latinos. So, it's everybody that ends up in that category, which is could be potentially anyone, but mostly is men. And when she put paints a target on men, although she's not specifically doing it, she's basically she's basically using that as a foundational move. And now she's adding out groups to men, but they're basically because she's she's essentially saying this this is how this relates to men, therefore they're an out group.
>> Yes.
Um, so but when you actually target men for silencing, you get things like the Deep Water Horizon disaster, which is a direct result of the corporate structure not listening to men because of this firewall that women like her construct between the seauite and the line.
And I could get more into that. Just trust me on this guys. This is how it works.
She creates the ability to not feel like you have to listen to the people who are actually the men who are actually producing stuff.
And she does it through this relational web thinking. You can listen to the men on top because they're signaling, right?
They're all they're doing the ESG and the DEI and they're getting big bonuses because they've increased the female workforce by 01%.
You know that CEOs get bonuses for pursuing ESG and DEI initiatives. Not being productive, not making sure that the pipes aren't eroded, pipe walls aren't eroded to the point where they're about to burst. No, making sure that they have more women in seats. That's what they get bonuses for.
It's why they earn now about a hundred times more than they did in the 50s.
But anyway, she's the reason why because she put paints the target and then silences the people and then the extractors go in and extract and this is all about creating out groups.
And on that level, it's actually pretty sinister. So, um, we can continue if you want.
>> Okay. Yeah, let's keep going.
>> Okay. So that no technology is in and of itself forbidden but the narrative frame the frame of worlding in which we do these things is what matters.
Now where am I in this talk? Good question.
>> The narrative frame is what matters guys.
>> This slide well let me first summarize.
>> Yes. Uh yes. Yes.
>> She used world. She said world as a verb. She said worlding. I'm just Okay.
Go ahead. Sorry.
>> Wanted to say something.
>> Sorry. I'm still just trying to work out what this nonsense about I'm a posthuman exceptionalist is which just seems to be the basis for all of this. Okay. So I I am beyond thinking that humans have some sort of brilliance within nature and then some nonsense about how we have to accept that with the ecology of nature and all of the failings and everything going horribly wrong and exploding.
I I I'm still just trying to understand what on earth nonsense she's spouting there.
>> Like I said, all the mushrooms. All the >> All the mushrooms for sure.
>> Okay, I got it. I got it.
>> Okay, >> it's the Heroay's self-coin position mid lecture. She rejects humanist and posthumanist and substitutes posthumanist exceptionalist.
When what she state what what she states what it means humans are not exceptional and kind but humans are exceptionally responsible. So basically humans are men guys. There we go.
She's basically just tied humans to men and men are bad. uniquely capable of mistakes, finitude, staying with the trouble, and obligated to multiecies care, which you don't operationalize.
So, you don't actually care. You don't actually do anything. You just care.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, what it does structurally is it preserves the loyalty test. Po pure posthumanism flattens the moral field.
If humans aren't special, the non- innocent test loses its target. So the non- innocence reference here is something that she put in her 1985 manifesto where she's basically saying that women are not an innocent category.
>> So she's what what she's doing is she's saying women are also men, >> right?
>> Yeah. Women are also part of the black category and they can't just be so you can't actually consider women. So that it's too it's too fixed to just give women a get out of jail free card. They also need to display this kind of loyalty to space rocks compassion like compassion for space rocks. So they have to they have to demonstrate compassion for space rocks or they're part of the out groupoup. And by outgroup I mean that women are men. So that's that's the non- innocence test. It's basically saying women have to comply with my brand of ingroup outgroup an um out in-group outgroup uh heristic or they are men.
Uh thus bad thus deserve to be thrown from the social web to wherever men are. You know the man space.
uh asymmetric obligation. Humans owe multiecies care. Multiecies do not owe humans anything.
>> This is the moral circle structure restated. Outer rings receive concern.
Inner rings humans supplies it and is judged by supply. And that's the other thing like in conjunction with other li uh liberal beliefs, the inner ring actually is considered more responsible by liberals, right? So the humans are more responsible than the space rocks.
Therefore, the humans take responsibility for the space rocks and don't actually deserve their own compassion.
All right, I I I'll leave it there. We can listen to some more if you want.
>> Uh let's do one more bit of this and then I'll let you close out with your thoughts and teal deer. Oh, all the beings in my litter for the purposes of this talk, cyborgs, animals of all kinds, especially pets, and the molecular biological entities of the world uh that are really critical to flourishing. Um, think for example of uh the kinds of health apparatuses that we now feel uh should be available to everybody.
uh think for a minute uh about the fact that Scott's eco evo could not have been formulated without the tools of advanced molecular biology. There is no way that we could answer the questions we have about how it is that the world comes into being. What kinds of interactions uh between the geological and hydraological worlds for example uh are occurring. There is no way that we could conduct conduct modern science without up tothe-minute uh digitalized scientific apparatuses uh and processes including those of molecular biology. So it's the apparatus of human exceptionalism that I'm arguing defeats us not the tools themselves. Okay.
How did we develop the tools if there was no human exceptionalism?
lady. Okay, >> remember remember that relational reader thinkers don't do this is the input. This is the mechanism. This is the output. The tools always existed, Brian. They existed in the back.
They never they never were created.
>> They just exist.
And what's important is how they are used. Not whether or not they're maintained, but how they are used as resources.
It's it's it's hard to wrap your mind around, isn't it? She she does not understand that tools get built.
>> Fair. All right, Alison, do your thing.
Maybe maybe uh Yeah, I'll do your thing and I'll give Tiel the last word.
>> All right.
Okay. So, this is obviously a relational web activity that we've just been watching.
So, so and again it's about creating an out group or identifying an out group and the the relational modality activities that are involved are um or sorry the the reasons why this is a relational modality activity is the object is medium is native using moths to signify migrant solidarity, lemurs to signify decolonization, monarchs to signify by ancestors. This is just normal cognition for the reading modality. An operative thinker would notice the moths are doing no moth specific work and the swap test failure would expose the operation. So essentially the moths are not really relevant. And the operational thinker would be like well what what what are we supposed to do for the moths and what the moths doing? Doesn't matter. It you could substitute moths for uh caterpillars. Well, I guess caterpillars sort of become Nope. Nope. They become butterflies. You could substitute moths for anything that migrates and it wouldn't matter. Hidden intention detection, non- innocence, complicity, fascism inside us, performing concern correctly are all readings of interior position. So what relational web readers spend a lot of time doing is trying to figure out the difference between the surface and the interior of people. So it's like it the the surface behavior encodes or hides something deeper and they're trying to figure it out. So she has all these categories of I am the one who has figured out the substrate. I am I am the wise witch or whatever she would call herself. I'm I got the knowledge of what people actually are.
Um the operative modality has no native apparatus for assessing where someone has correctly performed an interior state.
Yeah. Topology is the content in out web position. Who's connected to whom? The moral circle is a topology. constructing and policing it is the relational web modality's default activity applied to politics.
All right, so that's what she's up to.
And again, these are the this the kind of things that she is attending to in order to construct this ingroup outgroup.
Um, and in her 1985 cyber manifesto, she was sort of laying down the groundwork for switching the in-group outgroup heristic from women, right? Because that was like second wave feminism is essentially women are the ones who are innocent. Women are the ones who are the center of the web upon which everybody should be judged. And she's saying no.
She her argument was no women are not innocent. We should subject women also to the loyalty test. And the loyalty test is of course demonstrating compassion for it's not even specific things. It's just demonstrating compassion with with object to be determined. Like might as well just call it that. She says we must demonstrate compassion for object to be determined. And that's that's what she does over and over again. You can insert these objects with anything else. She's not talking about moths in terms of, oh, we need to preserve their migratory roots. We need to make sure they have the right whatever moths eat or No, she's just saying we need to demonstrate compassion towards the moth and the the moth is an interchangeable animal. It could be anything because the the idea is that you demonstrate compassion.
>> Yeah. towards whatever she says you should because she is the wise one at the center of the web. Um and uh okay so just give me a second. I'm going to find the rest of this.
All right. So the behavioral asymmetry is the diagnostic to this because what I'm going to talk about now is how she's signaling compassion but it translates into nothing. The compassion side produces no deliverables. Lemurs get a children's book she didn't write.
Butterflies get a painting she didn't make. The Wackan student gets a named once. Zero output towards the stated object objects of concern. The hostility side produces specific named targets, specific institutions, specific populations, and a deliberately inflammatory closing phrase. She flags it inflammatory before delivering. The litter exists to make the targeting legible as moral. The ring enumerates the mechanism for generating new failure conditions. The web of cited colleagues authorizes the speaker. She is the one in the center. Strip those three layers and what remains is target acquisition.
All right.
The construct. Okay. The system is organized around producing legitimate hostility and the universal concern performance is the apparatus that makes hostility legible as care.
So all of this is about identifying the correct targets for violence. Now what that violence scales to, I couldn't say.
Just uh probably in her case social censor.
um if it gets a little bit more hairy, maybe uh maybe increasing levels of actual physical violence, but that's what she's doing. She's identifying targets of violence. In this case, it's more of a p I think it's more passive.
You just don't you just censor them. You don't listen to them. You disregard their opinions. And she is presenting herself as the spider at the center who can tell everybody what everybody is actually thinking, what they what objects of compassion, what they should be directing their compassion to, which will probably change constantly. And also offers them a narrative that their aggressive targeting behavior is actually com is actually care. They care about you. That's why they need the thumb screws because they care, right?
Okay. Does uh I'm good.
>> All right, Tilder, do you have any um final thoughts on this?
>> I need to take a lot more mushrooms.
>> Then I will understand this.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, probably. I would imagine that um what one of the problems with understanding this is that it just doesn't come natively to people who are or men well men uh I don't want to say men because that sounds very derogatory but operative thinkers people who understand the world in terms of inputs machine outputs because this doesn't make sense on that level. This isn't about this isn't about accomplishing anything. It's about identifying people's positions in the web and uh yeah and and and for women that's sort of critical because their position determines how close they get to resources and resource acquisition is like it seems to be one of the central drivers of of women's cognition. Um but yeah, so it's like uh it's I think it's just more difficult, but that's what she's up to.
All right.
>> Is there anything interesting? Did anybody send a message? Like it's been >> No, we didn't get any super channels or anything, but there was a lot of people watching. I mean, we we had like 70 at one point. No. Uh 214 and 80 on the vertical, but uh no one sent any super chats or super cows, so >> Okay. All right. You guys were quiet today.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, no. Ex aside from the chatting.
the chatting was was >> okay.
>> Lot there was a lot. Okay.
>> Yeah. And again, if you want any expansion on any of the stuff that I've talked about, like relational versus operational thinking, um the moral circle research I've been doing or even like um more of my analysis of of Donna Hathaway. And to answer your question, Tiel Dear, yes, those sections are in her cyber manifesto.
Um but if you if you want to and I guess um Tiel Deer want will be reading the cyber manifesto and then we'll go through it on next week maybe >> the the plan.
>> Fine by me.
A fine by me. So let's let well hoping that Tilder feels up to it. We'll do >> Yeah, exactly. This has been sort of a surprise. Um and again I apologize.
>> I appreciate you adapting. It was mostly Alison's.
>> Yeah, definitely. Yeah, it was it was entirely my fault. Well, >> you are the worst thing about Honeybadger Radio.
>> I have always been I have always been the worst thing about Honeybadger Radio. It's true.
>> Okay. I am the I am the out group.
>> Yes.
All right, Alison, do the things and then we'll do the things.
>> All right. So, Oh, so M. Mr. Noob said, "My brain shuts off. I cannot grasp the web."
it because it's an internal process, right? It's just it it it you're never completely sure of where you where you sit in the web.
>> It's always something that it never ends and it never results in anything. And I think that really confounds men in particular that there just there's nothing there's nothing that comes out of this process.
There's no there's no hole in the beach.
No, you know, like dug no uh hole dug through the sand in the beach. There's no stick found. There's no plant operating. There's no new invention.
It's just this constant endless processing of where you stand in relation to others.
Um and it's main in this case Donna Donna Ha Harowway's main output of her web is of course targeting specific institutions, specific things, specific people um and uh you know specific I guess maybe I mean I guess I guess it yeah basically that just spec spec specificity infinite malleability in what you feel compassion for acute specificity in what you hate. and want to destroy. That's what she's doing. All right. So, if you find this interesting, um, and you want to read more, badgeration.online.
And if you go into the Discord, the I put my stuff in Allison's thoughts. And, um, if you want to support the show and send us a message, you can go to feedthebadger.comjust.
Uh, that's feedthebadger.comjustip.
And when it's available, you can support us directly at feedthebadger.com/support.
All right, back to you.
>> Okay. Well, if you guys like this video, >> must flow.
>> If you guys like this video, >> the web must flow.
Uh, if you guys like this video, please hit like, subscribe if you're not already subscribed, hit the bell for notifications, leave us a comment, let us know what you guys think about this, and uh, if you guys understand this web business, I know there are some females that watch us as well, so maybe they have a better grasp. Uh, and share the video because sharing is caring. Thank you guys so much for coming to the show.
Thank you to Teal Dear for um, making, you know, making this work out for us.
We weren't really sure what we were going to do for a second there. Uh so yeah, appreciate you so much and uh yeah, see you guys in the next video.
Have a good weekend everybody. Men's right activists are machines, dude.
Okay, they are literal machines. They are talking point machines. They are impossible to [ __ ] deal with.
Especially if you have like especially if you have like a couple dudes who have good memory on top of that, too. Holy [ __ ] you're [ __ ]
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
The fourth great humiliation. #jimmycarr #crowdwork #hecklers #standup
jimmycarr
576K views•2026-05-28
