Purveyor of Hardwood
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 14 de Sep, 2025
Do you honestly value the intelligence or insight of any of these people?
Charlie Kirk: Aftermath, Gravedancing, and Manhunt
- Iniciador del tema Amelia Troonheart
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 DDoS attack. Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/.
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack). -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 9 de Mayo, 2017
Both of them?
- Registrado
- 25 de Jul, 2019
Need Kiwi bible study group.
This is a Christian forum, no Mormons allowed
Farm Hand
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 21 de Ene, 2025
Had Jasmine Crockett ever said "Caucasian" in her entire life?
- Registrado
- 22 de Ago, 2020
What if we can't hug our wives because they all
nex40r
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 3 de Jul, 2025
He's just jealous he'll never have a memorial event. He'll only be remembered as a pedo and a dick sucker.
- Registrado
- 15 de Oct, 2023
America is not going to be the trannysucking society it once was in the last century. Kiwis are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for America to make. They are now going into a Total Tranny Death mode and Kiwis will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, America will not survive.
- Registrado
- 8 de Mayo, 2025
The public was invited to Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in Glendale, Arizona, so Westboro Baptist Church joins the fray with plain Gospel Words, which are LIFE and HEALTH for ours and our neighbors’ souls!
If you credit Luke 16 (and we do), this is what Charlie Kirk wants right now: for someone to warn his family and friends to serve God in TRUTH as He’s revealed in Scripture, so they don’t follow him (Charlie) to Hell.
Repent or perish!
If you credit Luke 16 (and we do), this is what Charlie Kirk wants right now: for someone to warn his family and friends to serve God in TRUTH as He’s revealed in Scripture, so they don’t follow him (Charlie) to Hell.
Repent or perish!
- Registrado
- 22 de Abr, 2022
There's also a difference between forgiveness and enabling. You can forgive someone without enabling them to do harm again in the future. I might forgive someone for smacking me in the face, but I probably won't stand as close to them next time around.
- Registrado
- 24 de Oct, 2020
Considering that a good chunk of them are young people, yes. Like it or not, there is a not insignificant chunk of people who do not care one way or the other about Charlie Kirk or the fact he was murdered, and watching the right-wing's outrage over it is annoying to them. The left could get a decent amount of support from saying "The right will get you fired just because you made fun of some random guy you never heard of before today dying".
- Registrado
- 16 de Oct, 2020
- Registrado
- 9 de Mayo, 2017
I keep losing mine in boating accidents.
- Registrado
- 30 de Abr, 2022
I wonder how democrat gen-z outreach will be affected for 2026 and 2028.
Im confidant they have lost interest from anyone who harbors even minor conservative views or wants to question the democrat party's policies.
Its great that they're taking the high road with righteous forgiveness from Kirks wife and TPUSA but many won't have the same sentiments.
Im confidant they have lost interest from anyone who harbors even minor conservative views or wants to question the democrat party's policies.
Its great that they're taking the high road with righteous forgiveness from Kirks wife and TPUSA but many won't have the same sentiments.
- Registrado
- 12 de Mar, 2021
how will IVF help us win the culture war?
if I had to guess same thing that happened to the dems after Obama, reps get a big head and do retard shit, causing a overton shift, getting a bigger amount of seats, causing dms to get a big head, ect. ect.
Unimaginative Username
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 27 de Mayo, 2025
This is the face of a man who has just realized that an indictment is coming and that the impending Congressional hearings aren't going to be a joke like they normally are, they're going to be a vehicle for getting footage of him calling for violence and hanging out with Houthi terrorists in front of the public to pre-emptively neuter the PR campaign he'll want to launch.
- Registrado
- 12 de Ene, 2017
Where's the list of (based) speakers who're worth listening to while going through the memorial? It's like 9 hours on Rumble, and it looks like it was in the last third where a lot of spitting fire came from.
- Registrado
- 13 de Jul, 2017
What is "it"?
- Registrado
- 16 de Oct, 2020
'Seeing the light'. Maybe convert entirely.
Clyde Cash's Left Teste
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 22 de Feb, 2024
Man they haven't been relavent in a decade.
- Registrado
- 24 de Mar, 2016
Plenty of people, better Christians than me, have already talked about the theological reasons for forgiveness.
But what if forgiveness, turning the other cheek, can also be a superior option from a purely rational viewpoint? What if God's plan for us is planned that way because it works better, with or without divine intervention?
I'm going to post something very autistic about math and game theory here, but I genuinely think it has something to do with why Christians, and Christian societies, have outlasted and outdone the rest of the world.
Prisoner's dilemma is the first "game" you learn about in the realm of game theory. In Prisoner's Dilemma, two prisoners are isolated from one another and interrogated. If neither speaks, they will both be convicted on a lesser charge and go to prison for a year. If both confess, they'll be in the clink for 5 years. If one confesses and the other doesn't, the one who confessed gets to walk free (he goes state's evidence), while the non-confessing criminal goes to prison for 10 years.
This creates a seeming paradox for rational beings, because if the other guy confesses, you're better off confessing. And if he doesn't confess, you're still better off confessing. So if you both do the rational thing, you end up with both people getting 5 years, even though if they'd cooperated, they'd both have done better. But you have to cooperate for that to happen, and you have to trust each other. It usually falls apart.
Many real-life situations amount to a prisoner's dilemma, and are often an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Cooperating with the other person in your "game" (not confessing) will lead to a better outcome for you both, but only if both people cooperate.
People have run a bunch of "iterated prisoner's dilemma" competitions in which they have attempted to define optimal strategies. Usually, you play for money, where "less time in prison" is swapped for "more money," and then you see who comes out on top. Typically, the strategy that has come out on top in these kinds of competitions is what's called the "first-turn cooperative followed by tit-for-tat" strategy. In the first turn, you "don't confess." Then, for subsequent turns, you do what your opponent did the last turn. If your opponent rats you out, you rat him out. If he's good and cooperative, you stay good and cooperative.
This strategy works fine in a psych/math experiment, and if both players play perfectly according to the rational strategy, they typically cooperate/don't confess every time.
But this falls apart in real world cooperative scenarios, for a couple of big reasons, the biggest of which is that sometimes people weren't even intending to not cooperate. The other big reason is that if both people are playing this strategy, the moment EITHER player plays a non-cooperate move, the game forever deteriorates into non-cooperation. It is war of all against all, the first moment someone doesn't cooperate...even if their non-cooperation was unintentional and they didn't realize it would be interpreted in that way.
That's poisonous to things like trade relationships.
Well, a couple of years ago, I had this notion that the thing that solves the "what happens when we've gone to non-cooperation and can't dig ourselves out of it?" issue in an iterated prisoner's dilemma is Jesus's solution: forgive them, for they know not what they do. Then I got the chance to test it: I actually played in a massive iterated prisoner's dilemma tournament in which strategies duked it out over a thousand rounds per two-person game (this was done instantly for each round via computers, since both players can state a strategy and see a thousand rounds played out very fast).
Approximately half of the players did some version of a tit-for-tat strategy. I chose a different way: tit-for-tat, but always forgive the first transgression from the other player...and then a sliding scale of forgiveness. The next time they play non-cooperate, it was a 90% chance of forgiveness. Then 80%. Then 70%. Then 60%. Never dropping below 10%.
The organizer of the tournament had never seen this specific strategy used. However, something wild happened: it won the whole tournament. It was blatantly more successful than the traditional strategy (which, after all, fell apart the moment someone attempted a non-cooperative move).
Jesus won. Many of the games played by others evolved through brief moments of non-cooperation but were able to be "reset" by forgiveness runs that led to longstanding cooperative runs. The strategy worked better than any of the hundreds of others chosen by other players.
This creates a seeming paradox for rational beings, because if the other guy confesses, you're better off confessing. And if he doesn't confess, you're still better off confessing. So if you both do the rational thing, you end up with both people getting 5 years, even though if they'd cooperated, they'd both have done better. But you have to cooperate for that to happen, and you have to trust each other. It usually falls apart.
Many real-life situations amount to a prisoner's dilemma, and are often an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Cooperating with the other person in your "game" (not confessing) will lead to a better outcome for you both, but only if both people cooperate.
People have run a bunch of "iterated prisoner's dilemma" competitions in which they have attempted to define optimal strategies. Usually, you play for money, where "less time in prison" is swapped for "more money," and then you see who comes out on top. Typically, the strategy that has come out on top in these kinds of competitions is what's called the "first-turn cooperative followed by tit-for-tat" strategy. In the first turn, you "don't confess." Then, for subsequent turns, you do what your opponent did the last turn. If your opponent rats you out, you rat him out. If he's good and cooperative, you stay good and cooperative.
This strategy works fine in a psych/math experiment, and if both players play perfectly according to the rational strategy, they typically cooperate/don't confess every time.
But this falls apart in real world cooperative scenarios, for a couple of big reasons, the biggest of which is that sometimes people weren't even intending to not cooperate. The other big reason is that if both people are playing this strategy, the moment EITHER player plays a non-cooperate move, the game forever deteriorates into non-cooperation. It is war of all against all, the first moment someone doesn't cooperate...even if their non-cooperation was unintentional and they didn't realize it would be interpreted in that way.
That's poisonous to things like trade relationships.
Well, a couple of years ago, I had this notion that the thing that solves the "what happens when we've gone to non-cooperation and can't dig ourselves out of it?" issue in an iterated prisoner's dilemma is Jesus's solution: forgive them, for they know not what they do. Then I got the chance to test it: I actually played in a massive iterated prisoner's dilemma tournament in which strategies duked it out over a thousand rounds per two-person game (this was done instantly for each round via computers, since both players can state a strategy and see a thousand rounds played out very fast).
Approximately half of the players did some version of a tit-for-tat strategy. I chose a different way: tit-for-tat, but always forgive the first transgression from the other player...and then a sliding scale of forgiveness. The next time they play non-cooperate, it was a 90% chance of forgiveness. Then 80%. Then 70%. Then 60%. Never dropping below 10%.
The organizer of the tournament had never seen this specific strategy used. However, something wild happened: it won the whole tournament. It was blatantly more successful than the traditional strategy (which, after all, fell apart the moment someone attempted a non-cooperative move).
Jesus won. Many of the games played by others evolved through brief moments of non-cooperation but were able to be "reset" by forgiveness runs that led to longstanding cooperative runs. The strategy worked better than any of the hundreds of others chosen by other players.
Forgiveness is the foundation from which Christian civilization was able to re-establish relationships with neighbors. It is a self-healing system when "players" become uncooperative with one another. It works best, obviously, when both "players" are inculcated with the belief in order that both are enacting a similar strategy, but the key is this: it works well across the board, even when your other player is using another strategy. So it works even if someone else isn't religious, doesn't buy into this forgiveness crap, doesn't agree with any of it. This goes a long way toward explaining why Christianity has gone through phases of hostility to specific religions but then has been able to work well with civilizations with those religions later on, to a degree that is simply not represented by other global religious traditions.
Forgiving is not an imperative to be a cuck because God hates you and wants you to lose. It is a divinely handed-down strategy for winning, even when your former cooperative trading partner has turned into an enemy. Forgiveness prevents short-term disputes from becoming centuries-long blood feuds that waste lives and money. It is not a weak option. It is strong, strategic, and functional. If it weren't, Christendom would have perished a hundred times over.