5 thoughts on “The End Of Risk”

  1. Show me any government that has ever cared for any people.
    Prisons are governments caring for people.
    Governments can whip and can take.
    “One of their key findings was that human beings are naturally loss-averse — we generally are willing to forego the probability of gains in order to minimize the chance of losses.”

    It seems women who have children are risk averse- or better said more concerned with their children than their own lives. And women without children or men without children can be quite reckless.
    It seems to me a consequence of women voting, is society should provide a good situation where women can raise children.
    We are instead providing them with a war zone to raise children- crappy government run schools, a War on Drugs, and etc.
    Scott Adam’s two societies {though he doesn’t mention women- he talks people want to be competitive and those who don’t] would be what I mean. Oppose to some crazy idea isolation of women {to make them safe}- it’s giving women [and men or anyone} a choice.
    We don’t need a uniformity of society, we can enable a diversity.

    1. Assuming people are acting in good faith, there is the opportunity for persuasion. Does the government want to help people? No, but people who control government do (assuming good faith). This should make people open to the realization that their policies are detrimental to the problems they want to solve. There needs to be accountability, an assessment.

      Altruism has to be balanced with outcomes. Predictions have to be checked against actual data. When outcomes and predictions don’t match expectations, people should re-evaluate how things went wrong and their own contribution to it.

      This is true for social welfare, education, gullible warming, and even the military.

  2. “We thus have a choice before us between the false promise of individual enervation and endless paternalistic caretaking from centralized authority and the real and chaotic world of liberty and risk. Which option we choose will decide whether our civilization survives.”

    We all know this is why there is the current appeal of listening to the experts who are so smart and elite that they base everything on logical fallacies and because fallacies are fallacies, people start to pick up that the experts are mere mortals who suffer from the same conditions as all other humans and shouldn’t be trusted any more than you would trust a pedo around children, which is a crude way of saying that no trust is given nor should be given, and that is why everything must be censored by the experts.

    There is a giant problem with this strategy. Just like dreams of envy and the desire to control bubble up naturally in humans, so does the desire to speak one’s mind and do whatever you want to do without getting bossed around by a bunch of pricks. No matter how much they censor, people will notice what is happening independently. Eventually, they will find out they are not alone and they have more power than they know, should they wish to wield it.

  3. I don’t think civilization is related to risk taking. I think civilization exists, as feminists insist, just to control female sexuality. Left to their own devices, women would compete with each other for the right to copulate with Dark Triad men. Somewhere along the way, some of the Dark Triad men realized they could get the incels to do all the work and support them, if they forced some of the women to copulate with the incels. I’m sure the Mean Girls realized if they helped in the creation of the Patriarchy, they’d get a bigger share of the Dark Triad men for themselves. Sistah Soljah said it better than I ever could. (Feminists want us to leave our Black men so they can eat our Black pussy, is how it went, I think.)

Comments are closed.