The idea is to put large, powerful animals like bulls or lions in the ring with several dogs, and the winner lives.
The sport has existed for thousands of years. One of our first records is of Indians showing it to Alexander the Great.
The first record in England comes from 1610 and features King James I requesting the Master of the Beargarden—a bear training facility—to provide him with three dogs to fight a lion.
Two of the dogs died and the last escaped because the lion did not wish to fight and retreated.
The sport had become popular across Europe.
People would import lions and set the most vicious dogs they could breed against them, in a pit—'pit them against them'.
A showing happened in Vienna in 1791.
The lion was magnanimous.
The crowd came for blood, but the lion didn't deliver any. Instead, it seemed to warn the dog that attacked it to turn away, and he simply let it go.
The sport was banned in Austria a few short years later.
But the sport carried on in Britain, and it was a far more disgusting spectacle because it had been far more refined.
The biggest promoter was one George Wombwell, who partnered with dog breeders who had created the predecessor to the pit bull—a vicious, unrelenting, evil dog.
The first of two of Wombwell's fights before the public was between the lion Nero and several of these ravening dogs.
The fight begins with the display of the lion and the first round of dogs.
Evidently, Nero had no interest in a fight. The dogs, however, sought a kill.
The fight continued with more of the same.
The dogs were unrelenting, and the lion was yelping, wailing, and refusing to ever start the fight.
The dogs did what they were bred for, and the lion showed the grace it's known for.
In the second round, the dogs simply brutalized the lion, but he never, at any point, wanted to fight.
He was always backing away and wondering why he was under attack.
The Nero fight was one-sided, and it did not make readers happy to hear.
But it wasn't the last of the horrible fights in Britain.
The second was also hosted by Wombwell, and it featured a lion named Wallace—the lion depicted in the first post.
Wallace was regarded as a much more fearsome lion than Nero.
In matters of feeding, he was not temperate. He would snarl at his handlers and didn't like to let them approach him.
So, he would presumably be able to show to the public that lions can relish in the sport.
When the dogs were released, the lion waited.
They were vicious, he was not. But he retaliated and bludgeoned and bit them, cutting them down.
The attack on Wallace continued, with fresh foes entering the pit.
Wallace squatted up and again, did not aim to start the fight. But he would end it.
Every one of the senseless attacks by the dogs was met with their deaths, and plenty of evidence of Wallace's mercy, too.
The ringmasters released more dogs on Wallace, and he kept defeating them as they came.
After killing what was apparently the best fighting dog in all of England, the match was declared in favor of Wallace.
Britain would never see another lion bait after these fights.
The public *hated* what happened. They considered it to be abject barbarity, and they recognized that lions did not want to fight like these killer dogs.
A few years later, the Cruelty to Animals Act banned baiting.
The only other animals that are as ferocious as pit bulls are others bred by humans to be that way.
Perhaps the lone exception might be hyenas, but even they don't seem to fly into a rage and kill everything around them after being set off.
Humanity bred an evil dog. It bred this dog in conditions of immense cruelty.
The only way to suss out which dogs had the reflexes for baiting was to put them into fights, to tease, excite, shout at, and physically manhandle them into a rage.
The only just action at this point in time is to eliminate all the breeds like this, all the breeds who have been genetically contaminated by the most extreme, degrading, and evil sorts of animal cruelty.
And PETA agrees: spay or neuter every single pit bull.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
World War I devastated Britain and likely slowed down its technological progress🧵
The reason being, the youth are the engine of innovation.
Areas that saw more deaths saw larger declines in patenting in the years following the war.
To figure out the innovation effects of losing a large portion of a generation's young men who were just coming into the primes of their lives, the authors needed four pieces of data.
The first were the numbers and pre-war locations of soldiers who died.
The next components were the numbers and locations of patent filings.
If you look at both graphs, you see obvious total population effects. So, areas must be normalized.
You know how most books on Amazon are AI slop now? If you didn't, look at the publication numbers.
Compare those to the proportion Pangram flags as AI-generated. It's fully aligned with the implied numbers based on the rise over 2022 publication levels!
Similarly, the rise of pro se litigants has come with a rise in case filings detected as being AI-generated, and with virtually zero false-positives before AI was around.
Pierre Guillaume Frédéric le Play argued that France's early fertility decline was driven by its inheritance reforms, where estates had to be split up equally to all of the kids, including the girls.
There's likely something to this!🧵
For reference, the French Revolution ushered in a number of egalitarian laws.
A major example of these had to do with inheritance, and in particular with partibility.
In some areas of France, there was partible inheritance, and in others, it was impartible.
Partible inheritance refers to inheritance spread among all of a person's heirs, sometimes including girls, sometimes not.
Impartible inheritance on the other hands refers to the situation where the head of an estate can nominate a particular heir to get all or a select portion.
In terms of their employment, religion, and sex, people who joined the Nazi party started off incredibly distinct from the people in their communities.
It's only near the end of WWII when they started resembling everyday Germans.
Early on, a lot of this dissimilarity is due to hysteresis.
Even as the party was growing, people were selectively recruited because they were often recruited by their out-of-place friends, and they were themselves out-of-place.
It took huge growth to break that.
And you can see the decline of fervor based on the decline of Nazi imagery in people's portraits.
And while this is observed by-and-large, it's not observed among the SS, who had a consistently higher rate of symbolic fanaticism.
I simulated 100,000 people to show how often people are "thrice-exceptional": Smart, stable, and exceptionally hard-working.
I've highlighted these people in red in this chart:
If you reorient the chart to a bird's eye view, it looks like this:
In short, there are not many people who are thrice-exceptional, in the sense of being at least +2 standard deviations in conscientiousness, emotional stability (i.e., inverse neuroticism), and intelligence.
To replicate this, use 42 as the seed and assume linearity and normality
The decline of trust is something worth caring about, and reversing it is something worth doing.
We should not have to live constantly wondering if we're being lied to or scammed. Trust should be possible again.
I don't know how we go about regaining trust and promoting trustworthiness in society.
It feels like there's an immense level of toleration of untrustworthy behavior from everyone: scams are openly funded; academics congratulate their fraudster peers; all content is now slop.
What China's doing—corruption crackdowns and arresting fraudsters—seems laudable, and I think the U.S. and other Western nations should follow suit.
Fraud leads to so many lives being lost and so much progress being halted or delayed.