@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

				

User ID: 890

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 890

To what extent do you (or legal or ethical theory) conflate or distinguish between force, and violence? Restraining someone is certainly forceful, but is it necessarily violent? If you had cheap, harmless sleep rays to aim at patients, would this be considered 'violence?' Such a technology "feels" unethical, even though it seems like it offers safety improvements.

The officer should face zero consequences. This is just politics. I am not insane. Thank you for your opinion.

I hated the prose too. Like another commenter said though, it is intentional. If I recall, one jarring word choice was something like the word 'vessel' to refer to a person's physical body -- over and over and over again. My guess is this is meant to characterize the narrator. so, I don't knock off points for it, just to say: I won't be reading it again.

Of course it isn't better than what we have now to people who prefer democrats. Why else would Gillitrut post what he did?

You seem to be implying that using these phrases is a kind of acting of the type: "teenager-y" which you juxtapose against "terroristy." It's you, you are the one being dishonest in exactly the way previously mentioned.

These phrases allow for a disconnect between the words and actions. What Good is saying is irrelevant to how she was acting. How she was acting is she struck someone with a car. The steelman for calling that a domestic terrorist is people use cars all the time for domestic terrorism.

what is "deranged" about it specifically? Is conflict theorist deranged by default? It seems to me be a straightforward application of consequences:

  • Tribally back the officer => Narrative is less likely to create popular pressure to see conviction etc.
  • Anything else => agent gets Derek Chauvin'd.

Ironically, I will say, like argument for Ross's self-defense, the mere fact that a reasonable administration thinks this could work might as well be enough for us to NOT call this "deranged."

Ah, so close, you could have said, "I know it seems confusing, but driving into someone is using deadly force..." and then your post would have been perfect. I do wonder if you would have gotten modd'ed for that comment; I won't speculate on that.

Probably most dads think this. I don't know Murphy well enough to say what is going on here: is he just too autistic to realize he is supposed to lie; or if he just likes trolling. Based on a cursory read of his other takes, it seems he is basically just trolling.

While the resulting grade of 0 seems slightly punitive and I don't doubt it was motivated by some level of personal offense, the professor's response hardly could be considered discriminatory. I've heard some grumblings that the instructor gave this grade specifically because she is trans - so it hurt more, or something - but I think most cis psychology profs these days would have a similar reaction

The teacher's (or was a TA?) identity groups are not relevant. The most affluent white (cis) female liberal can still do "viewpoint discrimination" or whatever we call it these days. It is discriminatory because of disparate outcome, basically. An equally shitty essay with flipped political valence would obviously (obvious to me) get more points. The grade of 0 being punitive is simply what is meant by 'discrimination' in this context.

I think you're probably right that the student should know better. She likely did know better. I think it might have been bait. This is the equivalent of gay couples suing cakeshops or whatever. I mean this in the "this essay was obviously (to her) shitty."

You say that a college-level writer needs a skill of adapting ideas to the audience, which I kind of expected you to say some variant of (victim blaming), before I had finished reading your post. The purpose of this course is not to teach the students to suck up. It is not suck-up-writing 101 (or 201). If it was, the prompt would say, 'write an argument for the following position.'

You gesture towards the idea that someone (other than the teacher) did wrong here, but I don't see it. My only conclusion here is you think viewpoint discrimination is alright. That's fine, and there are probably principled reasons to think that, but indeed it would make for a short post.

I've never read any EU books, but I've played lots of videogames. Is it a coincidence that the Jedi Academy book trilogy is about Exar Kun's ghost coming back and the videogame Jedi Academy is about Marka Ragnos's ghost coming back?

Even more ancient discussion here

Is it sad i do remember that story? I always assumed this was biased CW red meat, because of the way it made me feel personally. The Purpose of a System is What It Does, etc.

#1 and #3 feel like essentially the same kind of thing. Presumably, progressive people support saving (not-killing) Palestinians so that they can be made woke.

Comparisons to Kirk: they probably support the killing of prominent Palestinian conservative activists, if those exist.

Comparisons to Jay Jones: If we really want to be uncharitable, the response (or lack thereof? Quick, how is Election Day going?) to Jay Jones' texts perhaps reveals that in some cases, young White children are themselves a kind of political enemy, in a way that young transphobic Palestinian children are not. This is where I post copious Reddit comments saying that stock images of happy white families are vaguely dark, and the commenters themselves are confused about why.

#2 is really the interesting one. I would say American Social Leftism is primarily about Transgender and it is not feminist (anymore) in nature. It has been about Transgender ever since it stopped being about Homosexuals. And it hasn't been about economic redistribution in a long time. This is not a new sentiment; you see it on RW-twitter quite a bit.

I just wish that progressive people would acknowledge that conflicts and trade-offs between terminal goals like this exist, instead of loudly insisting that they don't and that anyone who claims they do is a crypto-conservative.

I understand you wish your enemies to be unpractical, but you obviously see why they behave the way they do, yeah? The only reason to notice and acknowledge that they are in tension is to try to break the coalition. Only conservatives want that (Who benefits?). Indeed, since progressive people understand this, the only thing they can do is say the goals are not in tension.

This solution has the disadvantage of marking up the cost sentencing and imprisonment. Oh well, I guess we just need to let rapists go free!

Kramnik has been making cheating allegations for well over a year now, and i doubt he has been giving evidence. He has already received some kinds of punishment, kinda: I think Chess.com muted his ability to use it as a blog, since he was being annoying or something.

If he gets punished further, it won't actually be because of cheating allegations, it will be because The People Demand Something Be Done because of Naroditsky. (I think its ironic that we take it for granted that he killed himself. You'd think with this topic in particular, we would wait until we have evidence before saying things!)

feels like Ive just seen the manchurian punditate activate accidentally.

Maybe this is a specific reference I didn't get. I understood you as saying: "This author prides himself with being center-left and not a woke psycho, but he still demands a formal cancellation by an institution for personal moral shortcomings." Was I misinterpreting? All I was saying was this author could think Kramnik's offences rise to Cancellable but (say) the Young Republicans don't.

So it's really hard for me to find examples of FIDE revoking titles for moral failings! Andrejs Strebkovs appears to be the only example I could find, and that is recent.

Still, in a post about how things used to work

This might be the issue! Johnson is barely talking about the past, and indeed he says returning wouldn't fix everything; he also explicitly says some norms are bad and should be changed. He is just venting about things, and all this 'social contract' stuff is just to give his opinions some sense of legitimacy.

I do appreciate you bringing this up. I do not like people's willingness to Mean Girl their way into what ought to just be objective accomplishment-tracking. I wonder if it is more generally related to the Great Feminization.

This sounds like the debate over if wokeness is just a list of object-level political opinions, or if wokeness is also a set of social conformism techniques.

Maybe the author agrees with Cancelling People, but just haggles over the price. Woke rebuttals to "wokeness is a set of social conformism techniques" include that Hollywood blacklisting communists was also cancel culture, and that we have always lived in a cancel culture. From here, we should see wokeness as just a list of object-level political opinions, including novel high speeds of vibe shifts.

Is this post just boo outgroup? Does the comparison to last week's happening (Young Republicans) make this something higher effort than that, and my interpretation of "boo outgroup" is just my bias? Who can tell!

Just because there is a gap doesn't mean its a meaningful market opportunity. How many users demand this?

Did you emphasize "contextualizing" and "neutral historical summary" because these sound like neutral-sounding terms but are in fact not neutral? Similarly, "translate this video" is in fact neutral, but AI doesn't like it?

In case you couldn't tell: "neutral vs political" is not a real, only the overton window is. Like it or not, the neutral is virtue-signaling any time Hitler is mentioned. Similarly, treating Hitler nonchalantly is [descriptive, not normative] political.

Of course but with logic like that, you also shouldn't abolish race slavery because next they'll give them the right to vote and then after that they'll be given Noble privileges without responsibilities and then...

I would say the quoted text is a bad reason to be against gay marriage. You can just let gays get married and then not trans the kids. He is saying it's bad to allow [fine thing] because its in the same direction as [worse thing]. What am I missing?

Now that we've established that this is not about celebration of evils like the Holocaust, we can talk about what is really going on here.

There is nothing wrong with pushing the overton window. You make the implication that Holocaust jokes are made so that one day we can genocide Jews again, but that's silly. With logic like that, I should have voted against gay marriage so that they wouldn't try to trans the kids next!

Yes, telling jokes are a way to wage the culture war. Since it is quite literally who/whom the entire topic is rather boring to talk about.

The kind of guy who mentions the Holocaust every day, in a "joking" manner is not joking. He celebrates the Holocaust. I suspect this groupchat does not have a Holocaust reference every day. I wrote this sentence before I read the Politico article in full.

The writer says 2900 pages of chats, and Giunta says 28,000 chats. The article says 251 epithets. These guys were not slinging epithets left and right. It is highly unlikely they are making Holocaust jokes every day, or else the Journalists would have said how many holocaust jokes.

Damned right I am minimizing this. They are joking. Nobody is trying to Holocaust the Jews. I bet these guys don't even support Hamas lol.

Kirk is not a saint and it's fine to joke about his death. I'm not sure I've seen many jokes though. I've seen a lot of "he had it coming" and a lot of glee. Those are not jokes because they are being serious.

That posters in this thread are comparing to Jay Jones is ironic and illustrative: he outright said he was being serious! I suppose his irony has more layers than even 4channers, eh? The only joke Jones told was the "2 bullets" joke, but everything else he said was serious.

Wearing an SS-armband would be a celebration of the Holocaust, which is not a joke.

  1. The question is wrong -- I don't think these texts indicate any of those things. For example: "support of slavery." What is going on here is the left treats race and slavery as sacred topics, which means no joking. Rejecting this taboo does not mean someone supports slavery. It could just mean they think HR ladies are cringe. Also it could mean they are a young boy.
  2. Personally, I like Vance's response. I think these texts are a nothingburger. I would prefer if all our powerful politicians made racist jokes behind closed doors, which indicates loyalty to my tribe (Reminder to those who cannot read: the tribe in question does not support slavery). Although I didn't answer yes to (1), I'll talk about concerned Republicans: certain portions of the Republican party may still be concerned. Upon contact with young male voters, these politicians might consider switching the letter next to their name. These things happen from time to time.
  3. No. The "hiding ones power level" phenomenon is not related to extremism. As I explained earlier, telling racist jokes is a shibboleth and tribal signal. Another example of ingroup-jargon is "trans women are women." Whether that slogan is "extremism" probably depends on if it's post-2020, or closer to 2015. Hiding ones power level is just code-switching so you don't scare the hoes normies. Since what is normal changes over time, you find that some signals and slogans will enter the mainstream and it is no longer necessary to code-switch. What we are witnessing is Vance's attempt to shift the Overton window (or perhaps evidence that it has already shifted). Violence has nothing to do with this, at all.
  4. The answers to this could vary because everyone is a little different. But i would say it's safe to assume it goes like this: the Democratic party is hostile to white men and the GOP is not. A particular white man who is not married to the Democratic party (on account of: economic resentment, sexual deviancy, class anxiety etc.) inevitably can only feel at home in the GOP. A self-identified Nazi could believe he has support just because of typical-minding.