BANNED USER: Persistent culture warring and petty antagonism
Bernd
Fighting algorithmic racism like John Henry
No bio...
User ID: 1266
Banned by: @Amadan
Bernd
Fighting algorithmic racism like John Henry
1yr ago
Just sorta shocked there are still people in that thread repeating "crime is at an all-time low, you're imagining things." Really rubs in that facts don't matter, only Daily Show matter. How do you even engage with deliberately invincible ignorance?
But the key is that their censoriousness worked on twitter despite them having less direct power, which is why people like Silver didn't criticize them until they were safely gone. Something about twitter (and reddit) allowed radicals to organize to hurt people without spiraling into self-destructive turbo-insanity the way they are on mastodon.
Thank you, it's an incredible read.
It looks like the No's are going to win using all the usual tactics.
No, because British newspapers in general are less reliable on trans issues.
PinkNews simply does not engage in the kind of politically motivated campaigning for trans rights that The Times and The Telegraph conduct against trans rights. They just don't, and if they did one would expect that some high-quality or academic sources would have picked up on it by now the way they have picked up on the campaigning by the mainstream anti-trans broadsheets. --Newimpartial
The Times, Telegraph, and Economist are not reliable sources on the topic of trans issues. While we can use biased sources to a degree on Wikipedia, we should not let their editorial decisions determine ours—just like we don't cram articles on American Democratic politicians full of every supposed scandal Fox News has implicated them in --Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)
I say manufactured controversy within the press, because no-one here has provided any sources that substantiate there being an academic dispute within the eunuch chapter of the 8th edition standards of care
It's really very simple. If one source takes a stance that bigotry against trans people is a good thing, and a different source takes a stance that bigotry against trans people is a bad thing, while it is true that they have opposite biases, that doesn't mean we give equal weight merely because they hold opposing positions. The position that is opposed to bigotry, or in your words, "grossly biased" against bigotry, is the one we're supposed to favor. The neutral position is not "pro-bigotry" and "anti-bigotry" are equivalent, so we give them equal weight. The neutral position is bigotry is bad, and we don't pretend that pro-bigotry perspectives are worth giving weight to... You believe what you want to believe, I don't give a shit about you. --Jayron32 (an admin)
I'll make it simpler. You are wrong. And persisting to argue here about whether LBC is a reliable source is wasting everyone's time, because it doesn't help your case. And selecting hateful sources and demanding Wikipedia repeats their hate, is not earning you any brownie points. -- Colin
Clouds of ink, browbeating, veiled and open threats, constantly changing the definition of terms and moving goalposts, demands for impossible evidence, hordes of supporting partisans rushing in to gang up on people. It's amazing to see the party struggle session perfected and enacted so casually at the slightest hint of Wrong Opinions.
And all the same things being done here. Is there any explanation for the reflexive denial other than blatant support for the pedo-castration fetishists?
This has been out there for months without gathering any attention outside of fringe right wing press like The Economist. It's been labeled a conspiracy to be ignored and sneered at, as it will be here. You don't have the power to confront them with it, so they can just pretend it's not happening until it's time to say "and it's good!"
Unsurprisingly, kiwifarms has all the deets and complete archives of their "research," which decisively answer all the deflection being done in this thread.
Not British anymore, but last time I was there the "kitchen knife ban" proposal had escalated from "lone judges and academics" to "respectable position of the church/quango blob" in the same way that "banning assault rifles" is the proper and correct opinion of anyone who matters in the US.
So I expect it'll happen soon. Banning meat and fish is on the same list of Proper Opinions, and you don't need pointy knives to eat bugs out of microwaved ration packets.
Bernd
Fighting algorithmic racism like John Henry
1yr ago
so a VTuber announces her intent to play Hogwarts Legacy and is immediately dogpiled to the point that she quits streaming. "All those harassers are just right-wingers in secret trying to discredit and kill trans people!" and "She deserved it anyways."
I wanted to talk about this one, but couldn't write anything dispassionate enough. Watching the narrative flip back and forth in real time was enraging, but it was so blatant that even redditors noticed and started quoting the "narcissist's prayer."
People keep saying things like "shooting themselves in the foot", but I don't see that. I see an exercise in total narrative dominance that's only strengthened by how indefensible the claims are. If even a contrarian like Freddie will bend the knee to it, how can it be a strategic error?
Bernd
Fighting algorithmic racism like John Henry
1yr ago
As with most of these things, the choice seems to be "tabloids and dissident press" or dead silence. Meaningful Journalists had to be dragged to cover this saga at every step, and only spoke up when the tabloids hit hard enough that the need for damage control made ignoring and silencing untenable.
I take a lot of inspiration from "don't negotiate with terrorist memeplexes."
It didn't feel like I was talking to a person at all.
It felt like I was talking to an AI designed to maximize the number of trans people.
The negotiating with terrorists analogy goes both ways. If you read their books they explicitly say that all negotiation is tactical: luring the victim into a moment of vulnerability to line up a kill shot, just like you would offer to deliver a pizza to a hostage-taker so your sniper can shoot him when he opens the door.
We had some wonderful posts from leftists just a few weeks ago who just couldn't understand why anyone would be foolish enough to keep the terms of a social compromise when they had the power to impose their will; the concept was utterly alien to them, like saying it's wrong to lie to Kant's axe murderer. All compromises are a temporary restriction to be abolished the second they hinder rather than help your goal.
Any negotiation you do isn't between two people who can come to a reasonable accommodation, it's between an agent of a totalizing ideology that will not stop until its goals are accomplished... and a victim that stands in its way. At the very best you might experience "united front work":
a mix of infiltration, subversion, propaganda, bribery, and false promises... Key to this work is a candied eye for what Party leaders would today call “win-win” propositions. Both sides win, then win, then win some more—until the Party is in position to impose a decisive win-lose on the other group
To it, you are the criminal that needs to be lied to, negotiated with in bad faith, and ultimately betrayed because no agreement with you is valid or enforceable. Because the goal is not coexisting with you, it is winning and erasing you and everything you believe in from history. Assurances like "nobody is coming for your children" don't actually mean anything: it's just a soothing noise, like an ambush predator instinctively imitates to make its prey feel safe. Or, like in that linked essay, a 1940s Chinese communist party liaison assuring the gullible Americans how much they love democracy and the USA, yee-haw boy-howdy.
So to the extent that being realistic about the intent of these actors is "denying their personhood", I deny it. "Less than human" would be an odd way of putting it, because in some sense being one component of a massive group-mind makes someone more than human, just not in any way that allows genuine person-to-person relationships to exist.
Putting it another way, a soldier wearing an enemy uniform is not less than human. If he was not wearing the uniform you might be friends. But if you walk up to him and offer to talk things out he will just shoot you, because that is the job he put the uniform on to do for his state, becoming the tool of a massive, uncaring, inhuman intelligence that seeks total victory rather than mutual understanding.
Shirtless bodybuilder looks up from his small publishing extra-based translation of Carl Schmitt: "Excuse me, was this steak cooked with seed oils?! I demand to speak to the manager!"
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak
It's not going to happen, you're crazy.
It's not happening
It's not happening quite like that
It's happening like that but there's nothing wrong with it
It's happening and maybe there's something wrong with it but there's nothing you can do about it
It happened and maybe there was something you could have done but it's too late now, why should I care? Why are you still dwelling on this? You're crazy.
Just a guess: meth can age people in their 20s so badly that nobody will ask questions if you show up to that kind of DV-and-detox scene looking 40. I know two women with unguessable-ages-in-a-bad-way because of that.
Welllll, one of my arguments is that liberals have often managed and used these types, or redirected their rage towards powerless victims.
I can't remember who said in 2020 ( probably David Hines) that liberals consider their children joining a leftist gang to loot and burn a helot neighborhood a charming traditional rite of passage--something to enjoy and get out of their system before they grow up and become university administrators, just like they did in the 60s. They do prevent the radicals from taking power, but only out of paternal instinct and self-interest.
Hey now, I specifically ruled myself out as a suspect by saying "high functioning," thank you very much.
I noticed he also skipped over explaining how his dream city wouldn't be a techno-panopticon hellscape. Except unlike the Chinese one with the totalitarian AI censorship presumably focused entirely against people who complain about all the used needles and shit in the streets, or who ask each other in hushed voices why their children's kindergarten Diversity lessons have to involve so many penises.
These are points of tension within the modern left, so the only winning move is not to play.
Traditionally the only winning move is to side with the most radical and potentially vengeful faction based on a more realistic version of the Basilisk/Pascal's wager theory.
I think that's one of the reasons people and institutions radicalize so quickly; there are punishments for anyone who doesn't stay ahead of the curve, but none for those who get ahead of it.
In this case there are clear incentives to start "sanitizing" Problematic output even in silly and arbitrary ways, because the value is showing that you're an accomplice. The details don't matter, as long as you throw out some shibboleths like "female-presenting nipples".
I'd strongly argue against typical paid ads, on the theory that anyone seeing ads on the internet these days is too much of an [uncurious technologically uninformed casual user] to have heard of adblockers.
If we were selling Gorilla Male Vitality Organic Vaginal Douches With Nonessential Oils to credulous [gentlepersons], ads would be the way to go.
But we're trying to sell Optimeme performance-enhancing "cognition supplements" to twitchy med students who find mainlining Adderall doesn't do it for them any more, which takes more sophisticated online marketing.
Getting the motte on people's blogrolls and (may Allah forgive me) quoted in Twitter threads seems like the way to go for attracting active participants.
Bernd
Fighting algorithmic racism like John Henry
1yr ago
Thanks for the update. We don't get nearly enough of that around here thanks to the format, so 90% of what's discussed just gets forgotten and never followed up on.
Starting to appreciate traditional forums more, where a thread can stay dormant and be revived with news.
That's exactly the weird doubt I had. Maybe there really is some weirdly autistic chav who goes around ranting about "fucking yorubans, with their nice houses and slightly narrower than west-african-average cranial maxilla and posh Ufẹ̀ accent. I hate them even more than the fucking Kposo!"
Haha, it's been that way for ages. Last year there were people saying that there was no crime increase in 2020, the 30% increase was just random statistical noise and Scott was making it all up https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/vn40ma/what_caused_the_2020_homicide_spike/ie5ct2u/
And of course ranting about the fucking pigs deserved their bricks which somehow never triggered the new mods' culture war detectors.
It's been a long time coming, and was preventable at every step if the obvious subversives had been purged instead of being handed the keys. Don't make that mistake again.
Bernd
Fighting algorithmic racism like John Henry
1yr ago
Wait, the effect also supposedly happens to poor white children, but it's caused by racism but white children can't experience rac--
Are people just so well trained that their brains immediately crimestop the most obvious chain of thought here?
Bernd
Fighting algorithmic racism like John Henry
1yr ago
the budget request gears much of that funding toward “effectively managing irregular migration along the Southwest border”
Someone deserves an award for coining "irregular migration." It can be effortlessly slipped in as a synonym for "illegal immigration" while completely inverting the meaning and intent. Word games really are power's best servant.
Bernd
Fighting algorithmic racism like John Henry
1yr ago
Honestly that last step of "backing down without admitting I was wrong" is disturbingly human.
This thing could already easily populate reddit without anyone being the wiser, just replace the boilerplate "I'm a language model" with "actually, as an expert in-"
I'm curious, do you think that the whole "Desmond is amazing" ketamine thing has anything to do with sex? Like do you see it as kids playing around? Because as a gay dude it seems obvious to me that he's non-figuratively being groomed by adult men, and iirc the CPS investigation backed that impression up. Yet corporations sponsor this stuff, and YouTube just deletes the incriminating videos and everyone pretends it didn't happen.
Telling people they can't point this out just seems wrong when doing this to kids is literally the thing they have issues with.
Is YouTube's business model imploding in slow motion?
They've been pushing more inane bullshit in recommended with zero prompting, and the algorithm just seems totally broken from too many manual overrides at this point. I don't see video ads thanks to Vanced, but the image ads are getting increasingly schizo or just plain weird. Who is actually paying for them any more?
Their personalization obviously isn't working too well either, given all my ads for menopause meds and Israeli flag lapel pins. Do they think I'm a republican congressman with a Bulwark subscription or something?
And three years later nobody has been arrested, because leftist street gangs can confess to murder on camera knowing the prosecutor won't go after them. That's a bigger deal than some capitol hill hipster business losing a few dollars in knick knack sales, but we get accountability for one and not the other.
More options
Context Copy link