PierreMenard
No bio...
User ID: 2675
PierreMenard
1mo ago
a lot of the current left are basically and I say this in descriptive way, The Other - single women, minorities, immigrants, non-straight people, etc.
Could it be that the (current) left is generally self-selected as a group of people that could be said to have 'thin-skin'?
If a single woman has some strength of character and she hears some kind of offensive speech, she's not going to immediately demand censorship by the government. Then that woman can go on and listen and research more right-wing arguments once past the shock of 'somebody disagrees with my teacher, the talking heads on TV, journalists, etc'. And she can become right-wing.
If she doesn't have character, then she can stay within the safe confines of the media-approved opinions, and she'll cowardly switch opinions every few months when the newest update of progressive beliefs comes in.
It's a fragile coalition as well, for example your Other includes TERFs and transpeople, or LGBT and muslims, or open borders supporters and Ukrainian nationalists...
PierreMenard
1mo ago
Thank you for the source, unfortunately I didn't see an explanation for what is causing these gaps to shrink slightly.
Well to be clear, if it were either of these that would validate the Brown decision, because it would prove that segregation was lowering the relative quality of the education received by black students.
So should the Department of Education start subsidizing 'white' birthrates to ensure an adequate supply of 'white' students to improve education for everybody or?
What forces do you suppose these to have been?
Modernity, hubris, the Evil One... it's hard to say. Whatever reason there was to blow up a somewhat functional society at the time, even for a lack of foresight, blind optimism, carelessness... Hard lessons the future will have to learn. One should not concern themselves with slippery slopes but with slippery slopes leading to slipperier slopes. Each of our stumbles makes the next more acceptable and the very idea of a stumble confused.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
how much we have to limit women's freedom to get them to make more babies, and start having them earlier.
Do you not see women having fewer if any children as an issue or do you simply disagree on the solutions offered? Do you think the people who agree with you politically see it as an issue? If yes, what kind of solutions do they offer?
PierreMenard
1mo ago
If every African-American woman was paired with an average IQ 'white' breeder, and the offspring selected for behavior and darkness, it would only take a couple generations to close the gap.
Nobody really wants to solve the problem.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
The male strategy used to be to match every single woman and then go through the dozen of matches and decide which ones are worth your time.
In the past few years it seems that they tweaked the algorithm to stratify users.
This is what I think happens now: on the first day they show all the women, including the most attractive ones, but if the swiping has a low match ratio, they stop showing them. The user gets ranked among low match ratio users and it's basically over for them. I think they may be able to buy premium options after that.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
Would you have a reference of a discussion of these results? I really wouldn't know where to look for something like that.
I could see a number of HBD-compatible explanations for these results. For example the development in race relations which caused the end of segregation has been having an effect on the genetic structure of the 'black' population. While inter-marriage was common during segregation, it is probably more common now. Moreover, it's possible that the children of these mixed unions identify in a different way than they would have 70 years ago.
Here is an analogy from Australia: Indigenous award recipients. Perhaps 2 or 3 of the people pictured look like they have obvious Aboriginal ancestry, 80% would probably pass as 'white'.
I imagine that Americans who could convincingly represent themselves as 'white' in the 1950s probably would, as this would most likely open doors to them. Up to 10% of African ancestry was found in Americans who identify as 'white'. Now in 2024, there are obvious incentives to self-identify as 'black'. People like Barack Obama or Jordan Peele who do look 'black', still had a 'white' mother. Conceivably, they could have a sibling that would look a lot 'whiter' and they could be just as well-achieving. If the 'black' student population of today is actually a lot 'whiter' than before, it's hard to tell if the gains have anything to do with a change in how the education is actually delivered.
Another factor to consider would be that the education system is very much focused on delivering 'good' results on the 'black' education front. It's possible that the way some of these institutions work is influencing the measurements of the outcomes. Perhaps, in the same manner as the progressive DAs immediately release violent offenders without bail, there is some kind of 'systemic anti-racism' at play that would contribute to these alleged gains.
I'm very much curious to read what they attribute the gains to.
Better access to more competent teachers ('white' ones)? Passive diffusion of so-called 'white' values from the 'white' pupils to the 'black' ones? More money taken from 'white' taxpayers? General lowering of expectations as a consequence of the ruin of society brought about by the same forces that ended segregation?
PierreMenard
1mo ago
I see those graphs where people have thousands of swipes, dozens of messages and a handful of dates and it's just depressing.
I don't mean to defend dating apps but I suspect that there's a little bit of selection bias. I expect the type of men who enjoy making data visualizations not to have great prospects on the dating market. Also if you really enjoy data visualization but you find the perfect match on the first try, you'll probably make data visualizations about something else.
I would almost suspect some of these guys to subconsciously shoot themselves in the foot because they're too busy thinking about collecting data and organizing it instead of putting their best effort into optimizing their profile, making conversation and enjoying the date.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
In turn, the African-American was always going to come off worse in the latter system.
Is there evidence that education of African-Americans is any better today?
There's that one 'experiment' in Kansas City with a judge throwing millions of dollars at black education to improve it that apparently failed.
The problem I see with 'desegregation' is that at some point you run out of white children to 'integrate' with your children who desperately need an 'integrated' education for whatever reason.
Is there some kind of breeding program to address this?
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for integrated education.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
They do not identify as one gender but “literally a mix”, according to court documents.
Literally a mix? Why'd they need doctors when any old kitchen appliance or garden power tool would do?
PierreMenard
1mo ago
The canonical example is a guy that takes a girl that's obviously blitzed out of her mind upstairs at a party
Intercourse with drunk women should just be illegal.
Either be 100% confident that the woman in question is not going to report you or abstain.
Then if we have a conviction of a rape of a drunk woman, we can also charge the bartender who poured the drinks.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
Did you or the writer attempt to control for the actual crime rate between these different states?
I expect a school bully who actually gets charged with a crime to have more than 1 target and get in trouble for other things than the very specific 'LGBT hate crime' category.
This could all just be a series of coincidences. States with LGBTQ-specific laws are more likely to have concentrated pockets of D-voters, with a minority of very criminogenic constituents, and also anti-law-and-order rules on the book. More crime -> more 'LGBT hate crime'
There is a certain tension between different progressive imperatives.
The LGBT bastion is probably the last holdout of 'true believers' for white Democrats. After all, once married to a white man, a heterosexual white woman might rethink her political affinities if her own family is discriminated against.
As the LGBT agenda is the only race-blind item on the list, it may become very uncomfortable to simultaneously support it and the rest, including :
- unlimited importation of potentially homophobic populations
- 'defund the police' movement
PierreMenard
1mo ago
the nonsense made of crime data if violent and sexual assaults committed by men are recorded as female crimes
That's one way of finally ending the blatant sex discrimination in the criminal justice system. After decades of loud protest for 'equality', life, uh, found a way.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
By that logic, "whiteness" - ie. not even being able to specify a fractional non-white ancestor on a college entry form - really does provide evidence for inherent racism.
Racism is not absolute. There is always a way for the darkest of population to integrate 'white' society. Just ask Thomas Jefferson.
I don't see anything wrong with racism in itself. Paradoxically, it seems that the only way to have a black upper-class is for racism to openly be an upper-class value.
It appears to me that as long as the ambitious and capable blacks are forced to adopt white upper-class values to belong, they will have to pay lip-service to anti-racism, which leads to their descendants miscegenating, and the dilution of their 'black' lineage into the 'white' one.
Therefore to achieve true racial equity, we would need more racism, not less.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
Move a black person to America and 400 years later they're
...dead?
But out of their descendants the ones that can integrate quickly stop 'being black' through intermixing.
Not 'acting white' is a matter of survival for the genes associated with melanin and other visible traits that define the 'African-American' phenotype.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
This is what I think is going on:
- like all women, feminists want to be 100% safe at all time
- yet they want to partake in fornication, which is a very unsafe activity
- additionally, they are not interested in men who follow feminist principles, ie constantly asking for consent is not something they associate with an attractive man
So perhaps what we can deduce from these observations is that the 'don't rape' seminaries are in fact shit tests (Usually unconscious effort by a woman to test man's worthiness and social status).
They do want the men that they are not attracted to not to make any kind of conventional romantic gesture (ie 'rapey' attitude or 'pre-rape' or what not), which is completely understandable.
They also expect the men that they are attracted to to be bold enough to push past these rules. After all, 50 shades of Grey is a best-seller.
In essence, the 'Hello HR?' meme, institutionalized. Plus it's a nice grift.
The men smart enough to fall for the training will eventually find out that successful men disregard it as needed, that's not gonna help with the I.N.C.E.L. terrorism, such as ;
More women report being randomly attacked while walking in New York City
PierreMenard
1mo ago
I think it's somewhat semantic.
nonetheless, they do not have the organization or unity or control to just make everyone do what they want
Well obviously we're not all doing everything that they want, but it appears preposterous to me to think that suppressing stories, shutting down online dissent, jailing people, using fake intelligence to start/amplify conflicts etc, is not exerting some kind of control over the world.
What is the difference between 'cabal' and 'captured by woke'?
What if the media was just a bunch of nazis all acting in concert with what Adolf Hitler decided? Is that a cabal or just 'being captured' by nazis?
Moreover, it's more than 'the media'. It's also social media companies (still the media perhaps but different people), it's gaming media companies, it's video game making companies. It's also government agencies.
There's a lawsuit right now:
Meanwhile, Landry, in his prepared testimony, obtained and reviewed by Fox News Digital, wrote that, through the lawsuit, they have "uncovered a censorship enterprise so vast that it spans over a dozen significant government institutions."
Perhaps evidence will come out from this law suit that support my hypothesis over yours. Remember, a conspiracy theorist is just a guy who is right early.
Other components of this conspiracy I would add are the non-profits crying wolf about various 'hate' crimes (to distinguish from love crimes), to push social media companies, schools, businesses to censor/cancel dissidents. And the internet infrastructure as well.
So I would say that at the minimum the components are the following :
- media
- government (including courts as seen in the current legal battle against Trump)
- tech companies
- NGOs
If it were just the media they would not be able to suppress competition.
If you embrace a belief in "shadowy gray cardinals " sitting in a room somewhere deciding what will happen this month, you can make everything fit that theory.
Well that's the point of beliefs, that they fit the observed world. It'd be weird to have a belief that does not adequately address what actually happens.
Unfortunately I'm not aware of a website that tracks media lies over time to reliably be able to provide receipts for what I consider as evidence in this case.
One such example would be for example the response to the Steele dossier. My understanding is that a number of media outlets all came together with claims of leaks from US/Western officials of a mysterious dossier circulating among the 'experts' in intelligence that would implicate candidate Trump in nefarious immoral or anti-American acts. Such media reports were riddled with quotes from 'anonymous sources' and such.
Another example would be the coverage of the Jan6 protests. For example the NYT made the incorrect claim that a police officer was killed by protesters:
A few days ago, the New York Times quietly “updated” its report, published over a month earlier, asserting that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick had been killed by being struck with a fire extinguisher during the January 6 riot.
I saw recently somebody claim online that these protesters killed a policeman, which shows that the strategy of 'lie loudly then quietly retract' had the intended effect of priming the mind of people who don't pay attention.
A third example would be the reaction to the NYPost article detailing their finding of Hunter Biden's laptop containing materials implicating him in at best in highly promiscuous activities with many connected socialites and at worst in international corruption, influence peddling, potential incestuous pedophilia... The reaction was of course to censor, dismiss, diminish as much as possible, using the same previously discredited 'anonymous intelligence' sources as for the Steele dossier, or the WMD in Iraq story... Why'd they stop using the same gimmick when it still works?
I believe that there are 2 underlying facts behind these examples:
- media professionals have a narrative that they're trying to push (duh)
- they coordinate together to either push false narratives or kill true but embarrassing ones, along with intelligence agencies/government operatives and social media companies, especially when it matters most right before elections
Does this involve "shadowy gray cardinals"? I suppose you could call the people in charge of media companies that, as well as the government officials they interact with, as well as the coordinators at the social media company level. Can the room be an email chain? Or a zoom meeting?
Perhaps when they wipe the servers they use to communicate confidential information on, they do not use acid, and Hillary does not personally smash them with a hammer.
Is it still a conspiracy if they're not literally wearing capes and bathing in blood?
PierreMenard
1mo ago
I'm very confident the US Deep State or whoever isn't collaborating with them
I would cautiously agree with you on that, contradicting evidence may come forward in the next few decades. I wouldn't say that about the previous conflicts with ISIS or Al-Qaida. What TPTB control is the media coverage, the foreign policy...
The previous EU and US response to conflicts on Russia's borders was not as dramatic.
actual paranoid theorizing about how the world is controlled by a giant conspiracy against you is a really hard epistemic failure to break out of.
It actually gives you some decent heuristics.
Meds can help, but of course that's what They would want you to do...
Is it? Was there like a multi-year media blitz to have people take meds or something? Schizos would have you believe that governments can just shut down borders and make you stay home and make you lose your job if you don't take the meds, but we all know it's impossible to ever close borders, and nobody would ever be able to coordinate such things.
So it's not a coincidence right?
EDIT: nevermind you did write you thought these things were more 'organic'. What kind of evidence would you need to believe that something is not 'organic', but rather 'fake and gay'?
but there's too much evidence of failure to believe they can just pick winners and move the zeitgeist on command.
The problem is that we don't know what exactly the goals are and what a 'failure' looks like, what we do see is large organized actions toward certain apparent goals, and they only seem to get bigger. What we may think of a failure may just be another possible path. Perhaps making all the boomers go MAGA was just one more way to get more people dependent on online socialization...
I gave you an example of 'TPTB' influencing various thing such as 'pandemics', 'social unrest', 'wars', which imo passes the bar of 'the idea that "TPTB" can control literally everything'.
But to you it's not valid because it's not 'TPTB can make everyone turn on a dime overnight.' I didn't claim that. They have a measure of control.
Most people don't say 'meteorologists can't predict the weather' because predictions after 5 weeks are generally meaningless. There is a certain level of prediction going on.
I'd say this is analogous to a boulder. If the boulder is big enough, no matter how hard I push it will not budge. If not, I can probably make it nudge forward and backward a little bit. If the boulder is uphill and I try really hard I can probably make it roll down the hill.
Am I able to roll the boulder back uphill? No. Am I able to send that boulder wherever I want? No. Can I make all boulders roll downhill? No.
I do believe that there are people that TPTB can make turn on a dime overnight. Journalists. It only took a few weeks for the coverage to go from 'It's racist to close borders to prevent Asians from bringing him a nothingburger of a cold' to 'Orange man bad for not doing enough to stop the spread of the Black Plague 2.0'.
Obviously the people in charge of these schemes are somewhat competent, but the moving parts are not necessarily. My understanding of those who are made to be 'flexible' in their beliefs is that there is some kind of underlying cognitive weakness. I don't expect these people to make good long-term decisions aside from professionally 'doing what TPTB say to stay on their good side'.
For the ones in charge, I would say the problem is their 'out-of-touchness'. It's hard to tell what being 'in-touch' means, but being a multi-faced sociopath 24/7 probably doesn't help introspection and relating to the common man. Especially if most of your interactions are with lackeys who are only thinking and saying whatever they think you expect them to.
What kind of psychology is at work behind the concurrent media coverage of : 'Glorious underdog desperately needs our support to fight back to the last man in urban guerilla against evil invader'
vs 'Glorious topdog desperately needs out support to invade and suppress evil terrorists fighting to the last man in urban guerilla' ?
PierreMenard
1mo ago
the owner of a HVAC company in suburban Michigan whose kind of annoyed by Trump, dislikes immigration, but also dislikes that he tired to repeal Obamacare, but hated that the country was shut down, and like the PPP loan he got.
There are people who like Obamacare? What would be the reasoning? From the business owner POV it seems that they'd be trying to hire less than full-time not to have to pay for health insurance.
If he wanted to spend more on health insurance for his employees, he could have done that prior to Obamacare I think.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
Well that was a mistake. I believe the ideas that Trump support are generally pretty popular.
Most people want their country to keep looking the way it did when they were children and not have 10% new different faces injected + a constant rhetoric that the way they've been living so far is abjectly immoral and they need to change NOW or they're EVIL. It should be a walk in the park for a generally well-presenting, competent-looking man to get ~60% of votes if he signals support toward a program that would support that worldview.
Usually the Republicans end up fielding the least-reptilian-looking investment firm manager who was able to curry enough favors from all the lobbyists to be eligible.
Then the voters say 'Well he probably laughs at plebs like me with his billionaire buddies but at least the country is going to descend into hell 20% slower than the other guy who outright laughs at me and blame me on TV for the country's problems'.
So the Democrats for whatever reason picked Hillary Clinton as replacement for golden goose Obama, and perhaps they had the idea that she was an utterly unlikable candidate so they had to go the extra mile to 'save the election'.
Here there's one measure of incompetency, picking HRC, and then there's one measure of competency, still trying to salvage it. They decided that in order to crush the Republicans, they would throw their entire media machine's support behind the goofiest, least-competent, most ridiculous showbusiness candidate this side of the Atlantic.
Plus they had to let the frustrated voters fantasize a little bit about getting what they want. Isn't that what democracy is for? You field some kooky guy who claims he wants to get you what you want, but he ends up losing to a more 'serious' candidate who has to compromise into getting you nothing that you want or the adults in the media or at the UN - or wherever people think adults are- will get you in trouble.
Then of course you use the worst possible version of the presentation of these ideas to discredit them 'oh yes we tried this in 2016 but that guy was just too goofy, serious people don't believe these things'.
That sounded like a good idea at the time, and the media kept laughing and scoffing that 'nobody is voting for Trump'. That was the plan. Who in their right mind would vote for a clown over serious girlboss HRC?
Then when it didn't work out they cooked up increasingly desperate counter-measures from the media to intelligence agencies, to the Science and health agencies... for a hot fix.
I wonder what the future is even going to look like. Because if you let people like Trump run the trouble is that they can get elected. We want to keep the song and dance of democracy going. And it's been going on pretty nicely with a nice continuity. Nobody's ever using the President's powers for anything that could disturb the general plan. Trump was ultimately the product of that small window in time in which the Internet was still letting unfiltered opinions through and the majority of voters started using the Internet. I'd say the Internet died in 2020 when governments found a reason to swing their weight around.
I think American democracy is going to get harder to maintain and the measures will get even more desperate than now - attempting to lock up top political opponents right before elections - like in these African countries where people vote along tribal lines, and voters risk machete attacks to cast their votes.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
everything, including wars, social unrest, pandemics, the stock market, and inflation
That's not everything. The last 2 are the same thing (the economy). All of these things can be (crudely) controlled.
And somehow the same people who also believe that TPTB are incompetent idiots mismanaging literally everything manage to believe both these things.
It's kind of the paradox. Not that mind-boggling of a belief tho. There are very smart people out there who think that a computer program answering cues can 'become intelligent' and take over the world as well.
Why would not-very-competent people who have a lot of power not use the technology of the day that actually works decently at modelling complicated phenomena to push for certain outcomes?
Do you genuinely believe the covid psy-op was organic? That the blm reversal 'actually you can go outside for police brutality protests' was genuine? That the pivot to Ukraine when the covid thing became too embarrassing was pure coincidence? That the pivot to Israel was also pure coincidence?
Or do you wonder why all these powerful people lied so much? With lies growing larger as time goes?
I don't know what it is to be honest. Were they trying to take out Trump because he really was threatening their system despite their mostly-successful blocking of his policies? Was it a way to cover up the last 30-50 years of failed foreign policy in the Middle-East, or just some kind of test, to see if people were ready to accept 'government says you can't enter this building at this time, thank you for your obedience'?
There is a paradox of competency. Clearly letting in millions of Central and South-Americans is not going to improve the general competency of the country. Planes are gonna start falling off the sky, bridges collapsing, trains derailing, towers getting smashed into...
Who could have predicted that sending gender studies majors to teach Afghans not to be sexist would not work? To be fair, with a few billion dollars and another couple decades I think it would have worked. In the mean time that's a nice way to secure employment for party-loyalists.
PierreMenard
1mo ago
I still like the concept!
PierreMenard
1mo ago
I hate to do this, but this is almost literally a textbook example of a straw man argument. No one outside a few on the far left is advocating open borders. The current argument about the border is whether to raise numbers up a bit or restrict them further, and whether Biden's current manner of dealing with the border is enough. Border patrol agents are still working. People are still getting deported.
The far left doesn't advocate opening borders, the borders are already open. They just attack anybody who wants to do anything about it.
People are still getting deported.
If you deport a thousand people and let in a million, you are still technically 'deporting' people.
The argument boils down to whether Biden should be taking actions that may or may not actually have any effect.
Yes, we get told that arresting gang members would not do anything about crime, until somebody does it and then 'at what cost???'
I've towed children in a trailer like that with no helmet but for a total of 30min and perhaps half a dozen times.
If this is a routine transit then it's not a bad idea to optimize safety, and have the kids get used to it/get over it. If it's once every couple weeks, probably not worth the hassle of the helmet.
I expect a helmet to be required only in the case of a collision, as you're probably not going fast enough to do any damage if you had a sudden stop.
If you expect a small chance of a collision on that route it'd probably be wiser to forego the whole endeavor altogether as I don't think these trailers are really designed to take any kind of collision with a much larger vehicle. Or if this is already optimal transportation for you, make peace with the idea that perhaps the kids will get hurt if something bad happens. If having a helmet makes them upset and distracts you from potential road danger, then foregoing the helmet might be the safer option.
More options
Context Copy link