@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

You seriously think social media is making teens more liberal?

Look up Redit from 10 years ago and tell me if it got more or less liberal.

Still no luck finding tinkering time. How are you doing @Southkraut?

That one issue in retrospect is almost a confession.

Did the issue come out before this happened, or after, making what he said an inside joke, rather than the issue a confession?

I can't even be bothered to bask in the schadenfreude anymore, when these male feminists get metooed, but these sorts of things, where people examine every detail of someone else's life under a microscope, are almost enough to make me feel some sympathy for the targets of these scandals.

They don't have to be akin to slaveholders, they just have to be in charge of a corrupt process.

Who's talking about punishing Israeli citizens fighting against Hamas?

Maybe your experience is more common in the vast low-density landscapes of America, but to me that sounds pretty atypical. Even in a tiny village you'd have a bunch of kids you'd hang out with. This wasn't always for the better, because bored kids in a low-stimulation environment would come up with dumb ideas, but the specific problem of isolation wasn't really there.

I don't know if comparing watching TV with a trip to the theater makes sense, it's not like you'd do the latter every day after work, most people I knew went maybe once or twice per year. It's not something you'd do to be social, but something you'd do to "uplift" yourself culturally. The mention of restaurants also feels neither here nor there, yeah it was a treat, normally you'd just eat at home with your family, and the typical family size tended to be larger that 2+1.

Don't get me wrong, there were always loners that preferred their own company, and by the sound of it, that seems to have been the case in your entire family, but it was nowhere bear as widespread as nowadays. Plus, the technology we have nowadays turned even social activities, like playing games with your friends or dating, into something rather alienating.

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem, but perhaps it's a recurrent problem. Or a problem that's always with us.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical. It's not just a question of looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses, I can literally just travel to parts of the world that are less affected by these social changes and notice they still have things like kids of all ages playing by themselves on the streets, and compare it to my country where it used to be a common sight, but isn't anymore.

Traditionalists always catch heat for nostalgia, but as far as I can tell the problem is perfectly symmetrical. There are people who find it really hard to believe that progress caused something to get worse, and once they get over that hump they'll insist nothing can be done about it.

No, it doesn't. Even if there aren't entire hospital wings devoted to transgender surgeries, or if it's just one wing of one hospital, or whatever it is that makes it hyperbole, the amount by which the trans issue has been pushed over the past decade is insane. I'll remind you it was trans activists themselves who swore up and down that no one is doing irreversible procedures on minors, as they were penetrating ze cabinets of the Biden administration to hatch a conspiracy to abolish age limits on irreversible gender procedures.

Do you think anyone carrying out DEI policies would agree "My job is to hire incompetent people who hate me?" I suppose a very cynical person who actually hates DEI but just does it because it's their job might. But surely you can imagine what an actual believer would say that would make sense from their perspective.

Well, if I look up what DEI enjoyers actually believe, they might no phrase it as "hire incompetent people who hate me", but if I'm working in some techie / shit-actually-needs-to-get-done field, and believe that:

  • Aspects of white culture include
  1. Emphasis on the scientific method
  2. Objective, rational, linear thinking
  3. Quantitative emphasis
  • White culture needs to be enhanced by diversity

Even if I believe that this combination will magically work out as an improvement over the status quo, how is it anything other than:

  • Me already hating myself, and believing I should hire people with similar attitudes?
  • Me believing I should hire people who are clearly incompetent for the job?

If I thought we should abolish medical licensing, would we be splitting hairs over whether or not I believe that incompetent people should be permitted to practice medicine?

I'm with you, but I don't know for how long he can keep evading assassinations.

If that was the only change they announced, I might be more skeptical too, but it seems like a comprehensive shift.

I can't say I understand what happened. I also don't think the actual culture could change so fast, but it feels like some rubber band snapped the moment Trump won.

An advertising boycott. It's no joke, I can't find the link, but I remember posting here that Elon lost 80% of advertising revenue on Twitter. He possibly made up for it by corresponding 80% emoyment cuts, and the shift to paid subscriptions, but the company's finances are now private, so we don't know.

This was also a very tangible threat for Zuckerberg, not a hypothetical. I remember seeing the "No Clicks For Hate" campaign, which was specifically targeted at Facebook, pop up in various places in the tech sector.

I don't even have a high opinion of the guy, but if you want an example of someone who was fighting the fight that can be won, than that would be Elon.

Mark can't even be called the guy that waited on the sidelines to see who wins. He was fighting for one side, and then turned his cloak when they started losing.

If you want an example of someone who's no hero, but can say he has principles and did what he could, that would be Jack Dorsey.

I don't think it was about silencing, more like a sales pitch to a clueless Boomer exec, that sounds just plausible enough they might buy it. Same thing as "this $mediaArtifact needs a more diverse cast, so we can appeal to a wider audience"

This isn't any less moral or worthy than serving the left/right,

It is, if you're not honest about it.

The factcheckers and Californian moderators are getting fired. The former will be replaced by a Community Notes -like system and are freaking out because, from what I understand, Zuckerberg was more or less single-handedly supporting the entire industry, while the latter will be replaced by Texans.

I'm not one for early celebrations, but it looks like these are actual policy changes.

In related news, Mark Zuckerberg went on Joe Rogan where, among other things, he talked about the pressure the Biden Administration put on him / his employees.

I never expected to be this bitter at the turning of the tide, but I feel the need to bookmark this clip for future use. Oh well, I suppose that was the most likely way something approaching a win would pan out, so I can't complain too much, but boy, would I like to have a few words with some people.

Why would they care, and why would they ever make it public if they knew?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I was putting off responding to you because I wanted to put effort that was proportional to yours.

Regarding sexism, I think you misread where I'm coming from. These aren't the views I hold, while I don't believe in "equality", in the sense that men and women are the same, I don't believe in superiority either. What I wrote down was more of an exercise in what I would believe, if I thought men are superior to women, and to some extent a rough description of how I parsed the worldview of sexists I ran into IRL. This also ties to the "noblesse oblige". While you might very well be right a sense of obligations for the lower classes seldom comes without a corresponding disdain, I'm arguing the same from the other side - disdain implies obligation.

As for Rotheram itself - if you're not too familiar with it, then you might want to look into some of the details. It's not that I'm obsessed on pinning it on my outgroup, it's that anyone responsible for something like this will be in my outrgroup tautologically. It's so egregious all the typical chin stroking about Moloch, incompetent bureaucracies, systemic isms, or lack of values in the society, simply no longer applies. The police quite literally preferred, and still prefers as the silencing of the victims is ongoing, to cover for rapists than to actually do something about them. You cannot explain this by the shock of the parents' indifference, when you are literally arresting parents trying to rescue their daughters.

I don't particularly care about making this about left vs. right, and I don't particularly care about the causes. I think this is about whether or not people are responsible for their deliberate actions. There seems to be a lot of people in the "no" camp, and even outside of this specific case, particularly the Rat-sphere seems to have devoted a lot of effort into promoting the idea that basic accountability is haram, and all you can do is impotently muse about "Moloch".

Because the median example is of people not doing their jobs

The median example is irrelevant. What matters is that the supposedly egregious examples were never punished, even after they became public and documented, in contrast to the victims trying the exercise their right to free speech. This means the supposedly egregious examples are seen as being within permissible parameters (again, in contrast to the victims being allowed to speak).

If we want to protect those girls and protect them in the future we MUST understand why cops and social workers failed them.

I don't rate your ability to judge why something happened highly, if you cannot tell what even happened. I also don't think this statement is even correct.

The racial part is important but gets lots of publicity,

Why is it important to you? I don't think mentioned it all in this conversation.

If this is what ends up breaking the spell around the guy, I'm going to be bitterly laughing for a very long time.

I'm seeing an Imgur link that you can view directly? This one: https://imgur.com/a/L4uXZwX

Who is the real retard then?

"I'll see your DR3, and raise you a DR4".

(Dissident Right are...) - don't ban plz, it's a self-deprecating joke!

Well, it's pretty simple. I'm more interested in what they did. For example, even now you insist on calling it "not doing their jobs", when it is clear they were actively and deliberately aiding rapists and harming victims, which they continue to do even now, as they try to intimidate them into silence.

The question of why might be interesting in it's own way, but it feels rather academic at the moment.

What am I "wrong" about, if all I'm doing showing how even if you're 100% right about the mentality of the police / socials workers / etc., there are still specific points that move this from "ho hum, it's just Moloch moloching around, what can you do" to it being a deliberate action against the people of Britain in violation of the trust put in the public officials? None of what you said addresses my points. It doesn't matter if the girl will return to the brothel the next day, it doesn't matter whether she's a druggie habitual liar undesirable literal goblin, you don't answer the call of the brothel owners to arrest the father that's breaking her daughter out. It doesn't matter that the public workers did not see their own actions as wrong, if that was a valid argument, we need to throw the entire legal code and stop arresting criminals. It doesn't matter whether or not your lived experience counts as evidence, because nothing you said addresses my points.