PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
Other commenters here have already pointed out the angle that epithets can be what you say to someone when you just want to hurt them, and that shouldn't be considered racism proper.
There seems to be some slight disagreement over that. It appears some won't settle for stamping out prejudice, and want a world where racial epithets are a line that can't be crossed.
The differing perspectives over this point lend evidence to an idea I've expressed before, which is a fundamental disagreement over the sacredness of race and racism. This also explains other social rules, like why certain off-color jokes about racism are wrong, even if the joke itself is not prejudicial and actually mocks racists. Racism is Not a Laughing Matter.
I doubt someone went through various occupations. I think the occupation being journalists is definitely part of the rage. If the statistic was over an increase in number of woman welders who died, that wouldn't spark the same response in the intended audience.
The tweet is a little confusing though, because these small percents really highlight how many of the killed journalists were men, so I'm not sure most people who see this will feel outraged at the dead journalists.
E: cursory glance at comments shows yes most people are a little annoyed it is about women, as opposed to just journalists. If this was crafted bait, it specifically was crafted to have a very slanted gender ratio. If nothing else, this is an effective way to talk about the number of journalists killed.
The argument is "this thing X will cause suffering if allowed/if not permitted". So you need angry, upset, worried faces to communicate that. If everyone at a protest is smiling and calm, it loses that sense of urgency. "If nobody is het-up about it, then it can't be all that bad" is the message communicated.
Is this consciously believed by protestors? Can I show them old photos of the Civil Rights protests and make them admit that actually, saving the trees or whatever is actually far more urgent than stopping black discrimination? After all, those black and white photos have a lot of smiles!
Is it a 'methinks the lady doth protest too much' where the modern tendency to signal urgency with anger is an ironic reflection that society knows the current SocJus movements are a bunch of crying over nothing?
Those who believe it only believe it unconsciously. Few believe it consciously, and of the ones that do, I'd expect 0 to be secular progressive NYT writers.
I think it's as simple as Jews say [positive statements about themselves] and that if a group of white people ever said [positive statements about themselves] on account of being white then they'd get called Supremists. Not because they actually think they are supreme, just, calling a group of white people White Supremists is just a Thing You Do to boo them. See also: conflation of White Separatists/Nationalists with supremists.
This angle fits the rest of the post, which was about overrepresentation, which is true but unacceptable to mention about Jews, but is acceptable to mention about whites. See also: the way to get the ADL to defend Ethnonationalism is to mention Israel.
Can you support "public perception reflected that" a little more? A lot of the people in that photo look to be on the asshole's side, or did they restrain him right after this was taken? Also, you and I have the benefit of hindsight, so we know what the right side of history is. Maybe much of the public was actually on his side?
A lot of things that I think are "obviously disruptive" like lighting buildings on fire in the summer of 2020, I am pretty sure a lot of my friends would call, "important for social change." "No woman ever changed the world by being obedient" and those kinds of remarks. Only time can tell what the right side of history will be right?
"Right side of history" is a halting-complete problem!
Not the poster you replied to but I hope I don't do his argument a disservice.
Maybe being raised in a middle class house with two parents causes good outcomes, just like genes cause good outcomes. Then, controlling for one would show a correlation with the other (and outcomes).
How do studies usually show "greater effect" in situations like these? Do two studies with different controls and compare at the correlations? How is "greater effect" defined?
Awhile back, there was some conversation about how a new social media platform could replace twitter if twitter users really don't like Elon Musk.
Today, I read about Bluesky social and it reminded me of that exchange. Now, the article includes a quote from Jack Dorsey that throws out a lot of applause lights, like "freedom," "choice," and "independence." Has anyone else heard about this?
Something I think is interesting is the remarks about needing an open-source model instead of a company. Whereas companies can change direction and leadership (Twitter...), an open-source standard can be implemented by all sorts of groups.
It's also possible that there will be attempts to migrate The Conversation off of twitter and onto Bluesky. I personally don't think it'll happen, but I'm also not brave enough to give any specific predictions or confidence numbers. Is anyone else?
What if most charismatic and energetic people are dead on text, and other charismatic and energetic people know this as "normal way to text." What you call "not dead on text" is basically mental illness and coming across as way too strong?
But your more general point, that OLD success is based on looks and not texting styles, is a different point. If attractive people can get away with texting however they like, that would support your theory that there is no thing as text game.
Firstly, you say, "just" following a link, as if laymen can be counted upon to just click links and not just arbitrarily download and run things and enter their passwords. In the real world, sometimes you have to lie to people in order to make them do what you want in the first place. In this case, make them extra cautious around websites.
Secondly, I've had this real question and an answer I've gotten from other developers: Websites can probably inject malware onto your file system in the form of cookies, but such malware wouldn't be executed unless from a trigger that a website can't do, so maybe this doesn't answer your question.
From what you've said it sounds like IQ is a grab-bag of different things. What does "women are as smart as men" mean? Are you saying:
-
men & women have "different" intelligences (your post is phrased far more controversially) or;
-
do IQ tests weight verbal questions more than spatial ones? (are there any other interpretations than the one I'm thinking of??)
I mention question weights because this guy sounds knowledgeable.
Is Greater Male Variability a property of the real world, independent of the IQ norming process? I would be astounded how our genetics or socialization techniques somehow cause GMV.
Does this apply to anything with antinatalist consequences? How slight can it be? Should we not be encouraging women to work? Does this apply towards changing the status quo "in reverse" to undo feminism? Is this a mis analogy because feminist activists weren't necessarily expecting the antinatalist consequences?
Have you ever thought about troon or train? They don't strike me as particularly worse than tranny.
I think activists would still loudly declare you homophobic. Being straight is OK, but your inability to move past the gayness and enjoy the movie is problematic. It's unacceptable to go around saying, "I like straight romcoms but not gay romcoms" for the same reasons one can't say, "I like cis-women but not trans-women."
We should distinguish media made about X from media made for X. If a niche piece of media is made for say, black people, I could envision "cultural appropriation" complaints if too many white people start enjoying it. OTOH, blackwashing batman isn't about making media for black people, it's about making media about black people, for everyone (mostly white people) to watch.
Back to Bros, this movie is about gays, but is for everyone. It's alright if the only way a straight person to enjoy this is to mentally replace the characters with ones that appeal to them. Indeed, maybe audiences already do that when watching straight romcoms (maybe you don't like their hair color?). But watching a relationship between two men is probably too weird and distracting that people probably find it difficult to make the mental substitutions (probably for me, too).
I think when it comes to charges of "homophobia" the only time you're ever allowed to treat gay and straight differently is in matters of orientation, which is to say, you wouldn't date a gay person if you're straight. Even then, you'd probably have to phrase it pretty carefully.
Yes, in this case the analogy is backwards, the family member is being the aggressor, not you.
What does it mean to care about this issue but not care about human rights?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but the answer seems obvious to me: someone could care about circumcision but not because of reasons relating to human rights. For example, someone could have an agenda against feminism and so go crusading about issues that affect men, in order to take conversation and public consciousness away from female-centric policy. I'm not saying you're doing that, just that it could be someone's motivation.
The poster you're replying to, I think, is saying that of all the human rights violations, circumcision just seems like such a silly hill to die on. Why spend much for little return value, instead of allocating effort to more fruitful violations? Hopefully in the future, circumcision won't cost so much to fix, or maybe once all the low-hanging fruit has been picked, then reach for circumcision.
I'll answer: they should suck it up because we shouldn't be making laws based around religious commandments. Their children are not property or slaves for them to make irreversible choices for. What's wrong with a standard, reddit-tier "argument for gay marriage" or bastardized "separation of church and state" argument in this scenario?
What gets you fiercely activated, beyond what you can rationally justify?
Anything about incels, low-status men, or nerds. Especially in regards to life development, dating, or gender relations. (In exactly the direction as expected from a Motteposter/SSC reader)
Speaking as someone who (I think) feels similarly as OP, it's purely about principle. Family should be beyond reproach, as he wrote. In a hypothetical universe where I didn't get vaccinated, it should still be beyond reproach. I hope I'd have the courage to spew this kind of bile in real life if the old, tired topic of covid ever comes up in meatspace. I'd know my success when my friends reply to my rant: "wait, aren't you vaccinated though?"
Yes, and?
Every few weeks I shutter at the thought that my own passion project will be beset by this one day. I don't blame either party here, when the enemy takes what you love, that really hurts. Neither party here seems to be inherently motivated by coding the thing. Unless I've not read it carefully enough?
I was gonna make a post about Andor if nobody else did. My best friend and I have been enjoying it, and its our favorite live-action star wars media from Disney.
A few things that separate it from Mandalorian that we enjoy is that it has a strong cast of more frequently recurring characters, and it's a serial drama instead of an episodic western.
The more adult themes were a small shock, but save for the one modern-day swear word used I think the show is appropriate for the IP. A lot of the situations and characters are things we haven't seen before, and it feels like trying to right a lot of the wrongs in Rogue One, while also borrowing some neat universe elements from the animated Rebels. I'm also really interested to see what they do with our sympathetic antagonist. I'm predicting a redemption arc, but I would not have predicted that going into the show, because of identity politics.
Probably the best praise about the show is that Cassian is the least interesting character!
If she likes surprising you with her effort, has she tried asking, "when is a good day for me to surprise you?" or are you so much a creature of habit that the answer is usually "no day"
Although the surprise won't be "that much" if you're expecting it, you won't be disappointed from looking forward to your usual right?
Must be semantics then. I don't use the word "woke" to mean "generic socially left wing" but I guess if other people do then some peoples' test scores will make them look bad.

I'm not an expert in shop, but what's stopping people from publishing digital, open source schematics for using more traditional metalworking to make firearms? Would it be too effective, a kind of "how to build a nuke in your kitchen" type thing, or are 3d printers really that much more accessible?
What does it take to make an AK, probably more than just a lathe right?
More options
Context Copy link