Oceans Yet to Burn
Month
I heard the theory that if homosexuality is so beyond the pale as to be socially impossible, then there’s no need to avoid potential signals of homosexuality. Right now men don’t do those things because if they did, everyone would assume they’re gay. If the assumption is nobody’s gay, you can do whatever you want without signaling anything.
I don’t know how true this is, someone like ozymandias271 might know more.
I am confident of that. I don’t think the NK regime actually is suicidal. The instances I have read of of political maneuvering by Kim Jong-un suggest absolutely no moral compass but plenty of attention to his image and consolidating his power and advancing his political goals. He’s not impulsive and he understands the geopolitics he’s operating in and he wants to stay in power. If NK seriously attacked the U.S. or Korea or anybody else with nuclear weapons he’s dead inside eight hours. I think there is basically zero chance he’ll do that.
Most of the risk of nuclear war comes from people misinterpreting signs during a high-tension period, and going to war with North Korea honestly seems like the kind of thing that increases that risk, as it dramatically increases international tensions with other nuclear powers, means there are missiles flying and more potential for confusion, and generally weakens the U.S. yet further, which makes us worse at discouraging proliferation. I think overall the risk of nuclear war is substantially higher if we get into a messy, diplomatically disastrous, protracted mess in Korea now.
(I am less absolutely certain it’s a bad idea to just bomb their facilities for refining. It’s probably a bad idea but it has ever worked before and arguably depends on information you and I don’t have access to.)
Politicals baffled majority of industry in country caters to majority of customers, products selling in lower volume priced higher.
The way people use the whole “marginalized people actually support CENTRIST policies” talking point based on really nothing lol is a good example of how identity politics supports neoliberalism
marginalized people support centrist policies because they’ve been duped into thinking that other marginalized people are stealing their jobs and taxes or whatever, not because centrist policies help marginalized people holy shit
You have to be careful though, because if you fuck it up you get things like French companies being really cautious about hiring people because they can’t easily fire them and have to manage all the productivity limitations.
GQ
Trump supporters as described in the media 12 months ago.
(via argumate)
two years on, voting for Trump remains a head-scratcher.
(via argumate)
Me: There could be side-effects to this whole culture war thing with these unethical tactics that you are not anticipating.
Them: I don’t know what you’re talking about. Getting outgroup members fired is definitely Good because outgroup members are Bad? There would only be consequences to this because outgroup members are Evil??
One of the classic problems around requiring regulations is that people just don’t have, and cannot easily obtain, that much information about businesses sometimes, which is required for markets to actually work.
(Even when information is free or nearly-free, the Market pays people to sabotage it, just like it pays people to sabotage Market competition through buying politicians.)
This is part of my interest in substituting mandatory insurance schemes for explicit regulations, provided the insurance regulations are themselves well-designed. The customer may not know much about the safety of the business, but the insurance company, which has a long-standing relationship with the business, does.
And the less the insurance company knows about the business, the more money it charges for insurance, offsetting some of the risk of harm and potentially communicating risk information to customers.
What we actually wanted to mitigate was risk/externalities, not the number of hair clippers, which is only a proxy.
One of the classic problems around requiring regulations is that people just don’t have, and cannot easily obtain, that much information about businesses sometimes, which is required for markets to actually work.
(Even when information is free or nearly-free, the Market pays people to sabotage it, just like it pays people to sabotage Market competition through buying politicians.)
This is part of my interest in substituting mandatory insurance schemes for explicit regulations, provided the insurance regulations are themselves well-designed. The customer may not know much about the safety of the business, but the insurance company, which has a long-standing relationship with the business, does.
And the less the insurance company knows about the business, the more money it charges for insurance, offsetting some of the risk of harm and potentially communicating risk information to customers.
Anon, honey kun, this is a really bad take and you should feel bad.
Modern political theorists haven’t modeled orientation-party-metaphor as a single axis since at least the publication of the Ganymede Papers in 1917. Most now model it as either a 17 or 5-dimensional manifold, depending on whether their simulations need full granularity.
Even using the outdated dual-axis Barker-McWillis partition of the orientation space shows that bisexualism isn’t centrism.
I really don’t know how I and every other gender-ideostruct theorist can be clearer about this.
a good test of the “women are not programmers because they prefer people jobs” hypothesis would be to teach, like, a year-long programming class for girls with a lot of pair programming and the entire class collaborating on a final project the way they’ll collaborate on projects in the work world
and see if the graduates are more likely to go into tech
I haven’t done pair programming but I’m really not looking forward to it.
How can pair programmers, like, think, when at any moment their thoughtstream could be interrupted?
I would feel a lot safer if there were employers committed to freeze peach in the same way that there are universities committed to freeze peach. Every offering on the market seems to want to reserve arbitrary power to fire people for saying unpopular or offensive things.
That would require customers to not boycott over dumb things.
Honestly, being in a community where the consensus was ‘bisexuality is the obvious correct orientation, someday we’ll have the ability to change orientation and when we do I will be bi because then I will be able to date more cool people” was kind of good for me because it meant that there was that zany, offbeat, totally-disconected-from-queer-politics message competing with all the biphobia and lesbophobia and discourse. Like, I know it can be a hurtful message or reenforce other hurtful messages, but competing needs are a thing and ‘an environment that takes for granted that maybe someday we’ll get to pick and that when we do people might happily choose non-straight orientations’ was a need of mine.
Seriously though why would anyone want to have to deal with Gender Wars Discourse and lopsided gender ratios in hobbies and pregnancy and power imbalances.
Okay, but I don’t want to deal with compulsory bisexuality discourse and pressure that is sure to result. Right now, we have the excuse not to be bi that changing sexuality is difficult if not impossible.
I mean, that’s pretty on the money in a way. Why should you be fixated on making someone have sex with you if they are inherently intolerant of you?
Unless like, you are a teenager and fucking assholes and getting heartbroken and abused by someone you want to disingenuously like you because of your obsession with the shallow trappings of being in a relationship with a cis person of the opposite sex is your thing.
Validation should come from peace with yourself than from the person who fucks you.
it’s like the guaranteed path to depression and chronic self-loathing.
It’s probably a good thing that the racenats are fighting over whether slavs are white, since that will likely prevent them from being able to do much of anything.
I heard that malnourished kids in Third World countries do much better in school if given lots of vitamins, which suggests that it’s not just developmental but can respond to supplementation now.
I’m pretty sure that it’s not a big factor in First World adults, mostly because I feel like I would have heard about it if it was, but I can’t remember seeing any specific proof.
If it’s something that was done and there was no mainstream blowback then it wasn’t an unambiguous norm violation. Also, norms aren’t content-neutral.
For anyone who’s nervously wondering how to avoid being aggressively sanctioned in public for their views/writings: Don’t…. be confrontationally nonconformist…. unless you have a sufficiently powerful outside institution backing you up. This is sheerest common sense, and the whole reason that dramatic public censure is public and dramatic is that it’s for things that are virtually impossible to do on accident.
Ah, yes, things that are virtually impossible to do by accident, such as the dongle thing and the shirt thing.
And it is worth remembering that “confrontationally nonconformist” includes things like “you donate money to a campaign for a state ballot proposition that wins the popular vote” and “someone finds out that you do BDSM”.
Tumblr kinda relies on being esoteric and cumbersome enough a platform (e.g. indexing, basic usability, permalinking, etc. are all complete garbage here) to keep the normies away. A large amount of seminal discourse is happening here (ironically, @argumate will probably unironically deny this (or make a joke about the word “seminal” as a dodge)) and subsequently failing to remain easily traceable as the source by the time it becomes a wikipedia citation or a news article (e.g. donglegate-type discourse and the Scott A.s, and @kontextmaschine posting Pepe in 2014, before Pepe was supposed to be a right wing thing).
Classic blogs were kinda like that in the ‘00s, and the same is perhaps true of USENET in the ‘90s.
I think it’s important for obnoxious thinkerpeople to stick their necks out a bit, and that includes reputational risk. If you don’t harvest risky future potential while people are still being civil, things will eventually turn uncivil (e.g. Rotherham and the rest of the UK and the rest of Europe). The actual measurable risks to the openly opinionated contrarian in a genuinely violent society are a lot greater that the ones in a less violent society (duh). It’s not a paradox but a pigeonhole to say that people who would care to avoid a particularly violent future have to take risks now, while things are still generally nonviolent.
Hmn… fair enough.
Though I benefit a lot from the Tumblr format in terms of average length, time-to-feedback, etc. Most blog entries out there have no comments, and nothing like “likes” to indicate perceived value and uptake, nor reblogs to spread them.
I would say worst idea but I think I should probably expect even worse ones.
The early Twenty-First Century was a time of many unusual ginger-themed political movements, including the Ginger Nationalist Movement, the Principality of Sea-Ginger, and the “One Red Hair” Club.
In addition to the “at-will employment“ angle here, also noticing people who get offended at words like “neckbeard“ seemingly unable to grasp the general concept of prejudicial language.
Turns out hypocrisy is not very convincing to the outgroup.
Ancaps and neonationalists in the same thread, lel. The fact that these people are bedfellows just betrays their utter lack of principles.
To be fair, most immigrants coming in are for more government interference, and AnCapism/Libertarianism can only be instantiated with sufficient public support. (For my part I want *better* government interference, but then, I’m not an AnCap.)
Gingers are a race
I’m willing to accept this argument, but only if it unlocks new and exciting discourse not yet available in my country.
One day has passed. Manifestbro was named, shamed and fired.
Instead of the version that gizmodo published, with the links and graphs stripped out, we have the full version of the memo now.
I think it’s important to understand that this memo was not written *for* the public to read, but for Google management. I don’t think the guy realised this would get more than a hundred views, or he might have posted it anonymously on wordpress. The sucker thought this would stay inside Google. What a douchebro!
There have been bits of insightful commentary, and most of the rest boiled down to “It’s true, but he should not say it“. @slatestarscratchpad had written a piece in reply to a reply to the memo, both of which focused of the science of gender differences, which were only tangentially related to the actionable recommendations from the memo about anti-diversity training.
Google executives have hand-wrung about valuing free expression and this should be discussed, but …
People have lost their shit over words like “agreeableness“, “openness“, “conscientiousness“ and “neuroticism“. Basically social psychology terminology is sexist now, which brings be to my …
Next Step: Go After Scientists
I’m being 100% serious here. I believe that the SJWs who hated this memo should do this one weird thing to maximise their culture war impact:
- Click the links in the memo
- Compile a list of scientists
- Ask them to disavow of the memo
- Go public
Otherwise manifestbro will find work at another place, and another Googler will find the same hatefacts on arXiv or PLoS. This is a pipeline problem. As long as there are “scientific“ studies on gender differences, people will use them. Especially genius Harvard biologists.
So you have to make it clear, drill it into people’s heads: If you continue researching this shit, there will be consequences! (Be vague about consequences here. Ostensibly you mean to imply that certain research output will turn genius Harvard biologists alt-right, but you also want to darkly hint at ~~consequences~~)
Once you establishes contact with a scientist, any of the coauthors of the linked papers, ask them if they think that their research directly supports the conclusions of the memo. Don’t let them weasel out. If they tell you that there is no direct link between the quality of sensitivity training (which they probably did not measure) at Google and OCEAN traits in undergrads, tell them to condemn the memo then, to be on the safe side.
If they tell you that they want to stay out of it, get inventive: Contact the student union at their institution or leak the names of their grad students on your twitter!
Ask them to
- condemn the memo
- publicly praise the importance of sensitivity training
- acknowledge their own responsibility for creating alt-right memes
- retract the paper they wrote cited in the memo
- not again publish results that put women at risk
Make them publicly commit to these pledges!
If they refuse, tweet! This is your one chance to destroy the root of the evil and to leave nothing but scorched earth. Things are in motion. Reactionaries don’t know if their increased visibility from the memo will help them coordinate, or if it will lead to a coordinated expulsion of known reactionaries. Don’t let counterrevolutionary elements take root! Now is your chance!
Ever forward! Fire and motion!
Ah, but how did we get the new reactionaries? The disadvantage of this method is that subsequent conversions to the right wing are permanent. Once someone finds out that “forced envelopment” got classified as something other than rape in study after the CDC contacted some institutional feminist, for instance, they aren’t going to believe Feminist studies anymore. At that point, getting them to come back to feminism becomes impossible. The number of hatefacts may be reduced, but every hatefact becomes more potent.
anaisnein said: the concept of natural, non-socialization-driven self-sorting by gender assumes that, in the absence of all socialization, gender would still be a thing (and one that generally aligns with what we’ll postulate are the two major reproductive apparatus types or clusters thereof). and I don’t find that intuitively obvious. and studies about babies gravitating to faces vs mobiles or whatever don’t seem to make a dent in how not at all intuitive it is.
I’m not sure how we could test this, given that human babies aren’t capable of independent development, so we can’t just dump a bunch of them in the wilderness somewhere and see what happens, nor do we have any truly blank slate adults to look after them.
My intuition is the opposite - it seems pretty absurd that sexual dimorphism would apply so clearly and visibly to the rest of our bodies yet have no impact whatsoever on personality distribution or what people are attracted to, especially given how complicated heterosexuality is.
And like, to rub this in, noticing that as many as 1 in 5 women may have PCOS (and thus elevated androgens) depending on the cutoff level just makes this seem more sensible to me, not less, because you can have a sterile XY female with sufficient androgen insensitivity, so obviously the process is complicated and not just a binary switch, leaving room for lots of variation while still clustering.
do rates of PCOS differ by field?
I would love to know this and rates of bisexualism/etc by field. I suspect they do, but I have a sample size of like, two.
Of course none of this is a reason not to believe individuals that say they like certain fields/interests!
anaisnein said: the concept of natural, non-socialization-driven self-sorting by gender assumes that, in the absence of all socialization, gender would still be a thing (and one that generally aligns with what we’ll postulate are the two major reproductive apparatus types or clusters thereof). and I don’t find that intuitively obvious. and studies about babies gravitating to faces vs mobiles or whatever don’t seem to make a dent in how not at all intuitive it is.
I’m not sure how we could test this, given that human babies aren’t capable of independent development, so we can’t just dump a bunch of them in the wilderness somewhere and see what happens, nor do we have any truly blank slate adults to look after them.
My intuition is the opposite - it seems pretty absurd that sexual dimorphism would apply so clearly and visibly to the rest of our bodies yet have no impact whatsoever on personality distribution or what people are attracted to, especially given how complicated heterosexuality is.
And like, to rub this in, noticing that as many as 1 in 5 women may have PCOS (and thus elevated androgens) depending on the cutoff level just makes this seem more sensible to me, not less, because you can have a sterile XY female with sufficient androgen insensitivity, so obviously the process is complicated and not just a binary switch, leaving room for lots of variation while still clustering.
do rates of PCOS differ by field?
I would love to know this and rates of bisexualism/etc by field. I suspect they do, but I have a sample size of like, two.
Like, don’t take for granted how we have not only all this complicated hardware for facial recognition, but also for determining atractiveness that tracks with e.g. specific kinds of body fat used to build the extremely expensive baby brains of our species.
In terms of how much trouble it is to implement, heterosexuality is actually really complicated and it only seems normal to so many people because it’s already implemented for them at the subconscious level.
anaisnein said: the concept of natural, non-socialization-driven self-sorting by gender assumes that, in the absence of all socialization, gender would still be a thing (and one that generally aligns with what we’ll postulate are the two major reproductive apparatus types or clusters thereof). and I don’t find that intuitively obvious. and studies about babies gravitating to faces vs mobiles or whatever don’t seem to make a dent in how not at all intuitive it is.
I’m not sure how we could test this, given that human babies aren’t capable of independent development, so we can’t just dump a bunch of them in the wilderness somewhere and see what happens, nor do we have any truly blank slate adults to look after them.
My intuition is the opposite - it seems pretty absurd that sexual dimorphism would apply so clearly and visibly to the rest of our bodies yet have no impact whatsoever on personality distribution or what people are attracted to, especially given how complicated heterosexuality is.
And like, to rub this in, noticing that as many as 1 in 5 women may have PCOS (and thus elevated androgens) depending on the cutoff level just makes this seem more sensible to me, not less, because you can have a sterile XY female with sufficient androgen insensitivity, so obviously the process is complicated and not just a binary switch, leaving room for lots of variation while still clustering.
let monster women look monstrous u fucking cowards
You think that sht pays for itself? You think fucking superconducting magnets for building these enormous full prosthetic bodies are free or something?
Alright, when my company makes some licensed, snake-themed anime bullsht, we can reliably sell 400,000 units. Yeah, that’s not a typo. Not forty units. Not four hundred units. Four hundred thousand units.
That’s what people want. That’s what they buy. That’s what they’re willing to pay for. We are in the business of making what people are willing to pay for. Microtanium alloy does not come cheap.
You think we haven’t tried more ‘exotic’ body designs? We’ve done that. Small batches. Little unique touches for all of them. Totally novel arm and shoulder designs.
You know who buys that? Collectors. Every time we try it it’s a struggle to sell the whole batch for more than it cost us to make it.
That “dumb” pretty design you’re railing against, that is so popular, is compatible with every door handle, every stove, most typical tops, most typical hats, and so on. You can go out tomorrow and buy everything you need for it. All the catalogs already exist, and where they don’t, “human equipment will do.”
Not to mention that, even leaving aside that most of our customers still have to interface with business environments, most humans aren’t gossisexual, they aren’t going to adapt to something too far outside the human bodyplan, and most of our customers don’t want to look hideous, even in the N- and L-band neurotypes. Even shifting most of the muscle control on e.g. the spider special mode to software is straining the neuroplasticity limits of the human brain, and neuroplasticity amplifiers are not free of side-effects.
This is just so woefully naive and idealistic. Really, I’ve had it up to here with outsiders trying to force their aesthetic preferences on my industry.
If you want such a monstrous body, go buy it yourself. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of custom shops that will put one together for you. But don’t go btching about how “your monsterwoman synth bodies don’t look monstrous enough”.
so what are we all getting mad about next
The ethics of cloning woolly mammoths?
how else are we gonna get juicy mammoth burgers??
Does someone not want woolly mammoths cloned? I cannot begin to imagine a halfway decent argument against that
It won’t be feasible to synthesize the necessary gut bacteria and socialization, and it isn’t clear what habitat they’d survive in currently, if anywhere. It may be difficult to get enough of a population going to ensure a stable breeding population, and the cost to get the 1,000 or maybe 10,000 mammoths that may take would be prohibitive for most entities that might consider doing it.
There, halfway decent.
so what are we all getting mad about next
I’m really upset that my favorite ship in Strawberry Rationalist Girl RenegadeAngles-san isn’t official in the new season and I’m planning to hold the government of Sapporo hostage in the name of queer spider-cyborg representation and morphological freedom until the studio agrees to make it canon.
I’ve got three airsoft rifles, a crew of fifteen dedicated hardcore brotakus, and a tank. I really think we can pull this off. You in?
please god tell me brotaku isn’t a real thing
“There are only two things in life that are valuable. Anime, and sick gainz.”
- some Japanese guy, probably
The Brotaku School of anime-style martial arts goes back to the year of 1994, in a small town on the outskirts of San Francisco, California. I’m not surprised you haven’t heard of it, since it’s pretty obscure. Few even know it exists, much less the power of its techniques. It’s quite brutal, but it has to be - the Brotaku School exists to break the will of the neckbeard so that they can be transformed and elevated to a new level of Man, seeking both perfection of mind and of body.
Not all of them survive. Those that do make a vow of voluntary celibacy in order to prove their loyalty to the 2D Ideal.
Of course, I don’t really hold to the 2D Ideal myself, different school of martial arts and beliefs and all that, but they embody a kind of aspect of the national will and we kind of deeply connected over sharing tips to unlock all the endings of Discourse Beach and then we decided to overthrow the government.
But eventually we realized that was too much work and settled for getting RenegadeAngles fixed.
So are you coming or what?
so what are we all getting mad about next
I’m really upset that my favorite ship in Strawberry Rationalist Girl RenegadeAngles-san isn’t official in the new season and I’m planning to hold the government of Sapporo hostage in the name of queer spider-cyborg representation and morphological freedom until the studio agrees to make it canon.
I’ve got three airsoft rifles, a crew of fifteen dedicated hardcore brotakus, and a tank. I really think we can pull this off. You in?
If the Dire Problem is supposed to be job automation, most of the best studies I’ve seen suggest that job automation isn’t having real effects right now (yes, everyone is confused about this, but the studies are pretty unanimous). I don’t know whether that will continue past the Truckpocalypse (<– correct form, your portmanteau is way too unwieldy).
My guess is Trump and Brexit have more to do with income inequality caused by other stuff, increased class differences coming from the income inequality, and various social stuff coming out of those class differences.
mitigatedextras sideblog for stuff that doesn’t make the cut for the main blog exists, if that’s your thing, dear readers
can you imagine if I had a sideblog for things that I thought weren’t good enough for this one
Mathematically, assuming a uniform distribution in the Tumblr space, as the number t of Tumblrs goes to infinity, the probability of a blog with the same contents as argumateextras existing approaches 1.
broke: more women should work for Google
woke: no one should work for Google
abstractagamid said: Google should work for us
nice
“woke”: no one should work for Google
woke: everyone should work for Google, then the diversity of Google’s workforce achieves perfect representation
you may just have a point
i cannot be held responsible for what happens when Google achieves Corporate Diversity Nirvana and transcends on the golden path to the ultimate state of multicultural being, okay
like, it isn’t my fault when they do this and ascend to the pantheon just because i pointed it out first
the fault of the immortal godmind of the ultimate corporate body of social justice manifesting physically is your fault for reblogging me
mitigatedextras sideblog for stuff that doesn’t make the cut for the main blog exists, if that’s your thing, dear readers
*anime villain voice* Heh… what you failed to realize is that this is only my first layer of irony
broke: more women should work for Google
woke: no one should work for Google
abstractagamid said: Google should work for us
nice
“woke”: no one should work for Google
woke: everyone should work for Google, then the diversity of Google’s workforce achieves perfect representation
You see, a suspicious bastard lies awake at night wondering if their friends have ulterior motives for defending them. But a really suspicious bastard lies awake at night wondering if their enemies have ulterior motives for attacking them.
I’m just trying to bring about World Revolution! Why doesn’t anyone believe me?!
Weird question time: what does it mean not to have a stable sense of self?
I ask because I am not sure I’ve experienced that. Every time I’ve felt something that I can imagine describing that way, it hasn’t been about not knowing what my self was, it’s been about being ashamed. Like, being convinced that what I know is important to me is bad and trying to disavow it and feeling unmoored in response because nothing I tried to replace it with felt right.
Is that what not having a stable sense of self is? Or does not having a stable sense of self mean literally not being sure what you like and want, rather than just not being sure it’s ok to want or like those things?
I don’t know if i have a stable sense of self, but like, i feel that i get easily convinced or swayed by people and I pick up mannerisms from people i like and talk to or hang out with a lot, i feel like i don’t have very much of a personality. I do have likes and opinions and aesthetics that i like, but not that many that are strong and i feel like it’s hugely affected by people i like around me or that i respect or follow online. I find it hard to decide whether i like something a lot of the time when it comes to things like media.
Yessssss,
just keep reading this blog and start believing that we need to replace the government with the thing that comes after what happens when you fuse think tanks, political parties, a hypothetical National Utility Function, and stock markets, wearing uniforms from old governments whose era long since passed, and preparing for the final robot war to seize control of the Moon
nothing could possibly go wrong
I now have a Twitter (which is to say, I remembered the e-mail for my old Twitter), and I don’t understand how to use it.
do i just… start posting things no one has any capability of seeing in the first place? i replied to people, but it doesn’t show on my timeline and “joins in on already existing twitter war” is a niche clearly filled
I thought you enjoyed yelling at people that you think are doing politics stupidly, as a recreational activity? Wouldn’t Soldier in the Great Twitter War be perfect?
140 character limit is like a noose
“Your beliefs are a like a religion. Suicide and self-harm are still incredibly high after HRT & GRS.” “In fact, transgenderism is much worse than religion. At least religion saves people from suicide.”
“Interesting thought! Interesting thought. But no. What’s actually true is” and i have no more space
Ugh, you are so unimaginative, Ranma. All you have to do is post strings of (X/140) tweets and then get accused of “manthreading” by a shtty BuzzHuff writer that has no idea what your gender is.
I don’t know why anyone would think Twitter is an inherently limiting platform that promotes bad discourse norms by its very form, lol.
Oh sht, do you have it? I haven’t been able to read it because it’s behind a paywall and my religion prohibits me from buying access to overpriced science journals.
I’m not religious, but you can’t really listen to sacred music without feeling that “divine” inspiration
I mean, we musicians treat music like it’s just a standard commodity now, and we play it as if it’s divorced from the thousand year tradition of Christianity.
I can’t imagine having faith in a higher being, but when I listen to Bach, I feel that there must be one, or, at the least, I can see quite clearly what can be achieved if you simply act like there is one.
“Act like there is a God” is not unreasonable praxis for most people.
Pro-tip that is only somewhat meant snarkily: If you’re going to use facts and logic to make a argumentative point, just use the facts and logic. Facts and logic should be able to stand on their own, they don’t need a preface saying you’re going to use facts and logic.
If you say “I’m using facts and logic“ there’s a subtext there that is “unlike you, who are irrational and hysterical.“
There’s a roughly similar point for talk of “bias” that I’ll leave as an exercise for the reader.
“That sounds like something a racist misogynist would say. I bet you talk about forking dongles near womyn, discouraging them from entering the tech industry with your disgusting sexual harassment.”
Total mystery why someone would assume certain factions were hysterical and illogical or not acting in good faith.
And yeah, I know it isn’t all like that, but aside from lopsided media exposure there is a culture war going on, and doxxing/firing/etc have been deemed Justice so a lot of that social capital has been blown, including for leftists more generally.
Nobody acts in good faith, we all run on corrupted hardware (but this is no excuse to handwave anytime you fuck up yourself). Fallacy bingo, histrionic accusations that a participant in a debate has no skin in the game and getting huffy about the opponent not being charitable are all manners of trying to goad the opponent into adhering to one’s personal shibboleths and should therefore be ignored.
In my opinion the best way, morally, to deal with all this diversity fighting is to just ignore it and act on your own morality. Nothing you do will ever be good enough to satisfy the culture warriors, and therefore their demands should be treated as irrelevant. Never agree to repay an infinite debt.
I have no interest in supporting a movement that awards social status for destroying people like me. I’ll help individuals, listen to those I trust, and act on my own morals. But without further information suggesting I should actually trust them, I won’t give the typical SJ thinkpiecer the time of day.
Burning enormous amounts of social capital fighting The Gays™ by the righties was also incredibly stupid.
Pro-tip that is only somewhat meant snarkily: If you’re going to use facts and logic to make a argumentative point, just use the facts and logic. Facts and logic should be able to stand on their own, they don’t need a preface saying you’re going to use facts and logic.
If you say “I’m using facts and logic“ there’s a subtext there that is “unlike you, who are irrational and hysterical.“
There’s a roughly similar point for talk of “bias” that I’ll leave as an exercise for the reader.
“That sounds like something a racist misogynist would say. I bet you talk about forking dongles near womyn, discouraging them from entering the tech industry with your disgusting sexual harassment.”
Total mystery why someone would assume certain factions were hysterical and illogical or not acting in good faith.
And yeah, I know it isn’t all like that, but aside from lopsided media exposure there is a culture war going on, and doxxing/firing/etc have been deemed Justice so a lot of that social capital has been blown, including for leftists more generally.
There isn’t going to be a race war.
But if there were, you know it would be the kind of guys that beat up Sihks for “being Muslim” and not something that proceeded in any sort of way that made sense even if it were evil sense.
This is true.
Let’s stick to the “no race war” plan.
Cartman will be disappointed.
In the Trolley Problem, I push Cartman in front of the trolley.
Please help. Whenever I read about magic, I cannot help but think of its potential industrial and economic applications.
There isn’t going to be a race war.
But if there were, you know it would be the kind of guys that beat up Sihks for “being Muslim” and not something that proceeded in any sort of way that made sense even if it were evil sense.
I’ve seen a few people make connections between the fact that a infinite number of cryptocurrencies is possible and worries about inflation, and I’m never quite sure what to think about that. What does the fact that dogecoin exists do to the value of bitcoin?
Guess the trouble there is that we don’t know where the value of bitcoin comes from. Hell, recently it’s becoming more clear we don’t know where the value of dollars comes from.
Well if you don’t have US dollars to pay taxes to the US government while living in the US, you’re gonna be in trouble. So that props up the value of US dollars since there is a certain force-backed demand for them.
holy shit illinois is pronounced ili-noy
how are you still allowed to be surprised by English pronunciation