Real answer: probably because chickens, ducks, and quail are generally just better at laying commercially viable eggs. Turkeys lay a lot fewer eggs, their eggs look wrong compared to chicken eggs, they only lay eggs seasonally, turkeys are much larger birds than chickens and quail, and turkeys typically brood their eggs which makes it harder to commercially farm them. You can grow turkeys and eat their eggs, and some people do. It just isn't viable to try to market those eggs because they'd be way more expensive than chicken, duck or quail eggs but not proportionately better.
Just imagine: 30 years ago, our civilization was so high trust that we had books delivered to every household with everyone's name, phone number, and sometimes even address.
When people tell you things are the same as they've always been, they're wrong.
When people tell you things are the same as they've always been, they're wrong.
Yeah, we know credit card companies have done this a lot, I don't believe they're not.
Gotta admit, I typically try to keep bees and my nipples separate. But I've never tried to combine them so I could believe wrong
You're not the boss of --
You know what? I'll give you this one. You can be the boss of me this time.
You know what? I'll give you this one. You can be the boss of me this time.
I thought federal funding was only 1% of the funding and it won't even hurt if you cut funding why are you even worried bro.
The purpose of the two minutes of hate is to distract from their own quality of life by blaming Goldstein.
Seen the economic conditions in Italy lately? No wonder they're mad at Goldstein! How dare he cause the last decade of economic decline!
Seen the economic conditions in Italy lately? No wonder they're mad at Goldstein! How dare he cause the last decade of economic decline!
I've been watching on the sidelines as Colbert's show is canceled, and he's apparently having public meltdowns because his show is losing a lot of money, but he's claiming he's getting fired because he criticizes the president.
The idea is -- what? That you can't fire people like Colbert ever because he makes fun of the president?
That's convenient.
The idea is -- what? That you can't fire people like Colbert ever because he makes fun of the president?
That's convenient.
I'm just saying, don't be disrespectful to the guy with glowing yellow eyes. Unlike Epstein, who didn't kill himself, those younglings were courting death by reminding the guy with glowing yellow eyes about something he found unfair!
Those younglings Vader killed had it coming. They called him "Master Skywalker" which was just mean -- everyone knows he got a seat on that council but he did not get the rank of master.
Money is a surrogate for power, and just because money goes away doesn't mean power goes away. Greed doesn't go away, it's just made less quantifiable because nobody is keeping track with slips of paper or numbers in a ledger.
A lot of people don't realize these facts, and so think if you stop measuring something it goes away.
A lot of people don't realize these facts, and so think if you stop measuring something it goes away.
I also tend to think that people can feel that there's something wrong with our society, that there is an existential threat under the surface that is going to lead to the end of a lot of people's bloodlines, but they can't quite put their finger on it because under the current orthodoxy they're not allowed to put their finger on it. By contrast, they are allowed to be terrified about climate change and so they are. The existential dread that they feel from the failure of modern ideologies that they aren't allowed to express gets moved over to this thing that people are allowed to express, and they just assume that The narrative that they have constructed for themselves is accurate.
I see what they're saying here, but it feels like an anachronism. When the 13 colonies were first established, they didn't have Network TV. There was a mail system, but especially in the frontiers, that was something. A lot slower and a lot more manual than what we think about today. The telegraph was eventually invented, but families weren't gathering in front of the telegraph machine to read the 6:00 wire.
A lot of people have pointed out that in the beginning, it was not the United States of america, it was these United States of america, plural. Each state was a local unified entity, and it had its own infrastructure more or less,. And the different states were United for the purpose of common defense and regulation of trade. It wasn't until the civil war that it became a much stronger federalism.
The very specific and deeply unified cultural regime of roughly in the early 1900s to roughly the end of the 20th century in some ways was an aberration. It will probably never happen again.
All that being said, I think that the people who have inherited the mass media of television and the radio and the newspapers also have largely missed the point that they basically had to work really hard to keep it a unified medium. People make fun of network censors, but one of the things that I'm realizing is a lot of people think that the platform of mass media just magically happens, when in reality those platforms have to tread very carefully to be a mass media platform. Work to polarize people, and they'll switch to another channel, even at peak media unity 50 years ago. I don't think it's an accident that many of these institutions survived the initial internet, even initial high-speed internet and initial streaming, but as the decision makers retired or died of old age younger individuals stepped in and now many of those institutions are dramatically reduced.
A lot of people have pointed out that in the beginning, it was not the United States of america, it was these United States of america, plural. Each state was a local unified entity, and it had its own infrastructure more or less,. And the different states were United for the purpose of common defense and regulation of trade. It wasn't until the civil war that it became a much stronger federalism.
The very specific and deeply unified cultural regime of roughly in the early 1900s to roughly the end of the 20th century in some ways was an aberration. It will probably never happen again.
All that being said, I think that the people who have inherited the mass media of television and the radio and the newspapers also have largely missed the point that they basically had to work really hard to keep it a unified medium. People make fun of network censors, but one of the things that I'm realizing is a lot of people think that the platform of mass media just magically happens, when in reality those platforms have to tread very carefully to be a mass media platform. Work to polarize people, and they'll switch to another channel, even at peak media unity 50 years ago. I don't think it's an accident that many of these institutions survived the initial internet, even initial high-speed internet and initial streaming, but as the decision makers retired or died of old age younger individuals stepped in and now many of those institutions are dramatically reduced.
I don't know what everyone's so worried about, there is absolutely no chance that your identity would ever get out. All of this is going to be stored under the best security there is, because no company would ever want their customer base getting out there
For no reason at all I better hit control v
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vl57n74pqo
For no reason at all I better hit control v
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vl57n74pqo
There is a good argument to be made that Marxism and its progenitors are intellectual descendants of Christianity. If nothing else, the idea that we are all equals before God is a revolutionary idea that most other ideologies reject categorically.
That said, my example of Wang Mang really destroys the idea that Christianity started the concept of holiness spirals, since Wang Mang essentially virtue signaled himself in as Emperor, and in his short reign we saw many of the same consequences as wokeness in organizations. Wang Mang's entire reign would have began, and played out within canonical Jesus's lifetime, prior to the broad adoption of Christianity -- certainly within Asia.
That said, my example of Wang Mang really destroys the idea that Christianity started the concept of holiness spirals, since Wang Mang essentially virtue signaled himself in as Emperor, and in his short reign we saw many of the same consequences as wokeness in organizations. Wang Mang's entire reign would have began, and played out within canonical Jesus's lifetime, prior to the broad adoption of Christianity -- certainly within Asia.
Fair enough. It isn't like it's actually produced anything of particular value in the past decade for me to defend it as something great.
I wrote a significant essay at one point that made sense of wokeness as "ultra-orthodox progressivism".
At the moment, that's manifested as DEI, because it was easiest to become an institutional orthodoxy.
So can there be such a thing as right-progressivism? The answer is yes. Christian teleology is progressive, though not the same as Marxist or neo-Marxist progressive teleology.
Progressive teleology simply means that you are progressing towards some sort of goal. Everything from Christianity to Buddhism, to Marxism to Burkean Conservatism has a progressive teleology through some viewpoint.
If you were to implement ultra-orthodox Christian progressive teleology, would it be "woke"? Was Wang Mang "woke" 2000 years before the concept appeared for trying to virtue signal and follow a Confucian progressive teleology? In the case of Wang Mang, many of his policies even look like socialist policies.
I think not -- it's a different thing, and so it's safe to say my original definition needs to be clarified to be "ultra-orthodox Marxist or neo-Marxist progressivism", and other forms of ultra-orthodox progressivism are a different thing.
You could decide not to make such a clarification, but that breaks most of our ideological epistemology at that point. I wouldn't be too opposed to that, to be honest -- Many of today's ideals are just mutations of enlightenment ideals filtered through the French Revolution and it's consequences. That would mean that liberalism isn't so different from fascism isn't so different than socialism or Marxism, and that's somewhat true. The thing is, that means that we need to step back to pre-modern ideas to actually grow.
So if we accept "woke right" on that premise, then it immediately breaks most people's worldview entirely -- most people believe a minor permutation of the same limited thing and they need to open their minds to the vastness of human thought over thousands of years of recorded history.
I think it does require both the structure and the Marxist teleology for it to mean anything in our current civilizational frame. Otherwise, everything is everything, which is absurd even through my own superpositional lens -- not everything is everything.
At the moment, that's manifested as DEI, because it was easiest to become an institutional orthodoxy.
So can there be such a thing as right-progressivism? The answer is yes. Christian teleology is progressive, though not the same as Marxist or neo-Marxist progressive teleology.
Progressive teleology simply means that you are progressing towards some sort of goal. Everything from Christianity to Buddhism, to Marxism to Burkean Conservatism has a progressive teleology through some viewpoint.
If you were to implement ultra-orthodox Christian progressive teleology, would it be "woke"? Was Wang Mang "woke" 2000 years before the concept appeared for trying to virtue signal and follow a Confucian progressive teleology? In the case of Wang Mang, many of his policies even look like socialist policies.
I think not -- it's a different thing, and so it's safe to say my original definition needs to be clarified to be "ultra-orthodox Marxist or neo-Marxist progressivism", and other forms of ultra-orthodox progressivism are a different thing.
You could decide not to make such a clarification, but that breaks most of our ideological epistemology at that point. I wouldn't be too opposed to that, to be honest -- Many of today's ideals are just mutations of enlightenment ideals filtered through the French Revolution and it's consequences. That would mean that liberalism isn't so different from fascism isn't so different than socialism or Marxism, and that's somewhat true. The thing is, that means that we need to step back to pre-modern ideas to actually grow.
So if we accept "woke right" on that premise, then it immediately breaks most people's worldview entirely -- most people believe a minor permutation of the same limited thing and they need to open their minds to the vastness of human thought over thousands of years of recorded history.
I think it does require both the structure and the Marxist teleology for it to mean anything in our current civilizational frame. Otherwise, everything is everything, which is absurd even through my own superpositional lens -- not everything is everything.