Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
Hillary Clinton should have been jailed and she should still be in jail. ... I mean is there anyone out there who didn't understand why Democrats were in shrill hysterics about fascism?
You can't say that Hillary should have been jailed and then straight away imply that the Dems were right to think that trying to jail her was fascist. Do you not see your own contradiction here?
But the Dermocrats didn't make him give that speech on January 6th.
You mean the speech where he didn't say anything objectionable, and certainly didn't instruct anyone to storm Congress?
I regret my support for former president Trump
How do you feel about his time spent in charge of the nuclear codes?
Sam Brinton is a proclaimed non-binary person (NB, or enby)
I've been coming across the term "enby" for months without knowing what it means (or, given context, daring to look it up). So thanks, this hard-hitting reporting justifies my continued doomscrolling!
how much social criticism does a masculine man who lifts, is heterosexual, has masculine hobbies like fishing and woodworking, has a few kids, a stay-at-home-wife, is the breadwinner etc but who kowtows to the dominant ideology in public (like many ‘masculine’ men throughout history) actually face?
With a grand total of 7 stipulations put on his behaviour, how is that not exactly the "controlled and neutered male energy" that was being described?
"Just make sure all your hobbies are prosocial and you support all these hangers-on and you vote the right way and never think anything wrong and don't have any oddities..."
Iirc this is exactly the source of Bullshit Jobs that David Graeber suggested: managers bolstering their own egos (or one might less charitably say bolstering their own megalomania) by incrementing the "how many underlings do I have" counter. Whether or not those underlings actually do anything is (apparently) not relevant to the modal human sense of self-aggrandizement: this type of people just wants Number Goes Up.
What is it about trying to lubricate the voting process that makes it 'cheating' compared to throwing sand in the gears of the same
When you do it at the last minute in response to an ideologically ginned-up fake crisis which you ginned-up in part precisely so you could do this, all the while complaining that other people aren't respecting "institutional norms".
If we're not alleging actual fraud, what is the objection?
That the praxis of Western democracy in it's entirety has become fake and gay, I suppose. Two wolves and a lamb voting who's for dinner may constitute above-board, by-the-numbers, all nice and legal democracy... but an autistic loyalty to the rules while shrugging your shoulders at the result has confused means with ends.
The only reason 4B ‘works’ in Korea (or at least doesn’t instantly collapse as farcical) is precisely because Korean society is actually great for women. In Africa if you try to withhold sex from men in general, or especially your husband, you’ll just get raped, and everyone will call you an idiot because OBVIOUSLY that’s what would happen.
Say what you will about sexual violence’s moral deficiencies, but it does keep women in line, as the fertility rates in Africa demonstrate.
Playing that anecdote as an Uno Reverse card won’t work, as a sufficiently motivated counterparty will just respond with “He wasn’t fired, he was still in the academy and drawing a salary, therefore he wasn’t suffering discrimination”.
As a practicing academic myself I wish I’d be able to spend more time on my research by getting banned from my teaching workload, teaching fucking sucks.
I suppose what you meant to say was that no group of men accepts an incel as their leader?
If a man is sufficiently attractive / outgoing / interesting / popular enough to be a leader of men, he is also sufficiently attractive / outgoing / interesting / popular enough to be a fucker of women.
Women are more than half of our population but research on women’s health has always been underfunded.
He didn't say (or at least you didn't quote) "underfunded relative to men", he just said "underfunded". Is it not that he could have been speaking in an absolute rather than a relative sense?
*DISCLAIMER: I actually believe that his words should be seen as tribal applause lights and so fact-checking them is missing the point, but there you go.
The critics had the whole season available to review.
And videogame journalists have the whole game to review, but a recurring feature of videogame reviews is that the reviewer obviously played a game with 100 hours of content for about 2 hours and then wrote their assignment.
People are lazy and cut corners in their jobs, c'est le vie.
I'm not going to be paying attention to what anyone else is saying; my world would have been shattered and I'd be doing my damnedest to keep every attention-sucking ghoul out of my mourning.
I think you do not understand how Bongland policing works.
The families in such cases are harangued into giving such a statements by the urging of the "friendly" "support" officers assigned to family liaison. I mean, the police's remit is the maintenance of public order, not the coddling of the bereaved, so I can't say they're not technically doing their jobs by hassling the families to come out with this kumbaya drek.
So in a sense you're right, the families probably would, in a vacuum, react emotionally as you would expect them to. But the police don't let 'em.
In the interests of drawing a line to contemporary culture war from the 30 year old news story that Uncle Ted is, I just want to highlight the extent to which reporting on his death is desperately trying to prosecute said culture war by smashing a square peg into a round hole:
His crimes seemed to begin shortly after he was fired from the family business by his brother for posting abusive limericks to a female colleague who had dumped him after two dates.
"Seemed" is doing a tremendous amount of work here. To me it SEEMED like his crimes began when he saw machines tearing up the forest. Who is it exactly, to whom there seemed to be an incel agenda?
Reading that paragraph, the words that reach my eyes are as printed, but the words that I think they're trying to get to reach my prefrontal cortex are
"Doing anything that a women doesn't like makes you a terrorist. All bad people are incels and all incels are bad people. Anyone who complains about globohomo only does so in bad faith because they're sexually frustrated."
"they are not stupid, so if they are at the bottom it can only be because society has placed them there."
But if you actually prove that they are stupid, then what?
This is MathWizard's point: progressives don't actually disbelieve that the stupid deserve to be at the bottom of the pile, they simply disagree about who are the stupid ones.
Maybe this kind of stuff is needed because people like you deny the Holocaust and argue that Jews control our lives?
Does everyone in America really need to be right about something that happened on another continent 80 years ago?
I'm not saying the Holocaust didn't happen, I'm saying we shouldn't care whether it did or not; certainly not to the extent of making laws about it.
On the other hand, a man who juts barely landed a committed partner, has no chance of finding casual partners.
Do you live in opposite world? The "vetting" meme is real: already having a gf is the best pussy magnet (outside of having several millions of dollars).
[Edit: for speak-plainly purposes, the vetting meme is the idea that women are more attracted to men who already have committed partners because the presence of the committed partner demonstrates ex facie that he is capable of satisfying a woman (in all social, financial, and sexual spheres). It is both a costly signal, and proof that he is indeed boyfriend material.]
In the paper they have a subsection that says "One weakness of this study is that we assume that jobs can be broken down into tasks", and that is indeed their fatal assumption.
As I hammer at every opportunity: most jobs are Bullshit Jobs. The belief that a job is 'me being paid for accomplishing economically useful tasks' is such a Red Tribe / small business / results-oriented view of things, which totally ignores the principal-agent problems ubiquitous to the large organisations in which most of us actually work. No, the corporate / state / academic drones of us have jobs because (a) our manager wants to increment his "Number of underlings" ego-counter, or (b) the government makes up jobs as sinecures to make their unemployment statistics look better.
Both of these ACTUAL sources of employment are utterly insensitive to ChatGPT being better at tasks than humans, so actually no-one's job is in danger at all.
One example I see is the entire etf industry. Not the specific esg funds but just normal spy. Most just vote according to what ISS tells them
Can you speak plainly, please? Your thicket of context-free acronyms is entirely impenetrable.
Memocide sounds like a word someone made up so they can claim that anyone who corrects their BS is "literally Hitler".
Because from the definition as written, striking geocentrism out of the textbooks is a flavour of genocide.
But I personally have learned that the notion that we can compartmentalize, and get along with each other, is one of the most important values to me
I don't mind being nice to people who ideologically hate me.
It would be wise, however, not to actually finance their arms purchases for the Culture War.
I would also argue that its kind of a trope that incels only want sex from attractive women, are therefore voluntarily choosing celibacy, and thus deserve to be maligned.
My usual rejoinder to the "just lower your standards bro, then you'll have loads of partners to pick from" argument is that is is isomorphic with "just become gay bro, then you'll have loads of partners to pick from".
A man can't just choose to be physically attracted to a 200 pound heifer femcel and thereby mutually annihilate the incel-femcel pair, any more than he can choose to suddenly like male on male sodomy.
I am not an expert on the US classification system, but I do know that producing an unclassified summary of classified information (including, for example, the classified information you worked on in the last week) is difficult work that only a few people in each department are qualified to do. The rule in corporate finance departments at banks (where almost all staff have access to market-moving non-public information such as upcoming mergers) and it is "Do not discuss live deals with anyone outside the department, even in general terms." For a corporate financier, sending a meaningful response to that e-mail would be a firing offence.
But this isn’t, like, a fact of the universe caused by the legitimate praxis of those jobs. Rather, this is itself administrative bloat designed to give bullshit jobs to the summarisers or inflate the self-importance of managers who want to pretend that their work is super serious. Everything you said constitutes organisational-calcification red tape that SHOULD be dismissively cut through, not “omg the freak-out-ers are right”.
Even when i worked for the governing party I could not just go to the BBC to squash stories.
Unless you were the Minister of Culture I don't know why you'd think you could. Of course the tea boy in 10 Downing Street doesn't get to boss people around as much as a cabinet minister would. YOUR failure to influence the Beeb doesn't mean everyone in the British government is similarly toothless.
I'm curious about this. To what extent are his views actually his choice?
"His views are his choice, our choice is to not associate with him" is a lie from both directions.
If newspapers really, really cared what their cartoonists think, they'd have their on-staff investigative reporters do PI work on 'em. They don't, because what they actually care about from revealed preferences is their cartoonist's public-facing, loudly broadcasted views. If it's not gonna cause them PR problems, they don't care, and if it's not a broadcasted view, it's not gonna cause them PR problems. No-one cares if you don't really think General Secretary Andropov is a good leader, so long as you keep your opinions to your fucking self, comrade.
The other direction in which this is a lie is that it's not the newspaper's choice either. They're being coerced, extorted, by (their expectations of) their own readership. That's what a "PR problem" is - a problem that wouldn't matter unless the public's reaction mattered. If it were 1950 and Dilbert was being published mostly in the South, Adams' comments wouldn't be a PR problem, they'd be a PR boon, and no-one would get cancelled; which serves to prove that the newspaper is similarly constrained by the political milieu in which it operates.
Admittedly, this sort of analysis is mildly comolicated by the recent dynamic of entryism into newspapers by actual ideological zealots who would like to use investigative reporters as Stasi thoughtpolice on their own colleagues and don't care if the newspaper goes bankrupt so long as Brown Scare enemies get cancelled, but I don't think those people are making the command decisions. Yet.
I think this line of reasoning does not demonstrate what you think it demonstrates.
If 0% of the men are defective and 60% of the women are insufferably defective, then the 40% non-defective women get married to 40% of the men, leaving 60% of the men who can't find a woman that's not insufferable.
So you'd still get unmarried men despite there being no problem with them.
I did think Rishi reading "We give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who is the son of God and etc. etc." was particularly farcical.
I guess it just feels like an extra notch in the subsumption of British particularism into the soup of globohomo when the Establishment doesn't respect the culture enough to even try to maintain the kayfabe. I mean, sure, I doubt Bojo's a sincere Christian at heart and him reading epistles would be rank hypocrisy, but even purely nominal Christianity is better than official Hinduism. With Rishi, you know it's just his mouth making sounds and the words are not believed. With Bojo, you'd merely strongly suspect it.
Much was made during the Trump years of "Why are you supporting this man who from his actions clearly doesn't give a shit about the white working class", and the answer was often "I can't get positive actions from any of the candidates, so I'll take the one that at least one pretends to care over the others who don't even bother with the pretense". Having a Hindu read homilies during the King's official pledge to protect the Christian spirit of Britain? That has to me the taste of a ceremony that didn't even pretend to care about the ancient mores of the sceptred isle.
More options
Context Copy link