@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

False dichotomy. Wokeism was a cancerous political movement, but the reaction from the Right should have been to defeat it conventionally, not to devolve into Trump Cultism nor to treat it as a blank check to engage in nearly unlimited political hypocrisy (e.g. Trump's open corruption).

If it could be defeated conventionally, why didn't the Democrats do it? Why didn't any of the never-Trumpers?

Ironically, I think Kulak genuinely does believe in them, I just think he's an instigator who wants other people to take him seriously enough to act on his suggestions. But yes, I think his hatred and desire for violence is real.

That's a reasonable take, but personally the guy is just a bit too preoccupied with spreadsheets about how his posts perform for me to take the content terribly seriously.

And I think most people who claim to be afraid of fascism, or who think Trump is Hitler,.are being sincere. They are ignorant and sheltered and generally have no concept of what "fascism" would really look like

This is an issue I have with "charity" and "steelmanning", it often results in attacking someone in an attempt to defend them. Is being ignorant worse than being insincere, or is it the other way around? Either way MadMozer doesn't strike me as either ignorant nor sheltered.

Actually, accusing someone of not believing what they are saying is uncharitable

I think it depends. I don't know if I can formulate a general rule at the moment, but for an example from the other side: I don't think saying Kulak doesn't actually believe in his violent rebellion fantasies is uncharitable.

Dayum, you managed to find a reason to use that one again! That's some dedicated hatin'!

Your dedication to insisting that nothing you said in the past should matter, sure is a sight to behold.

though I will point out that I didn't actually demand money stakes to "prove he really believed what he was saying."

I'm not really demanding money stakes either, I'm completely fine with a gentlemen's bet. It's just that he expressed concerns about relative probabilities, and with money you can do things like favorable odds that take them into account.

And yes I think he should prove he actually believes what he's saying. There's nothing unreasonable in stating that he doesn't.

though I was briefly offended at the thought of using the military

Ok, right. That was the part that the Nybbler was asking about. If he wasn't joking about thr military, the deal not going through makes the lack of occupation more surprising, not less.

The deal didn't go through. Were you paying attention?

Wait, so for you the outrageous thing about it was that he offered to buy it?

A 10% chance that Trump is Hitler is a good reason for Americans who don't want to live under Nazi rule (or foreigners who might have to fight a future Nazi America - the main reason why Hitler is the worst is the aggressive war) to be worrying, but I still wouldn't want to bet on it.

As gattsuru pointed out, I'm happy to offer 10:1 odds. I just flat out don't believe that anyone actually thinks "Trump is Hitler" is even remotely likely, and I don't think they are actually worried about that.

If you think there's the slightest chance he'll run, bet me about it.

she should have confidently asserted that a woman was someone, anyone, who made it clear that they wished to be treated as such,

To be treated as what?

Likewise, he seems dangerously removed from a common understanding of the upper classes how things are done, the informal rules on how society is conducted. When Biden pardoned his son, that was noteworthy, scandalous. With the Trump administration, pardons of political allies, people who bribe him by buying his shitcoin etc is not a scandal but a Tuesday.

That's complete opposite of what happened. When Biden made his pardons, the pro-establishment people barely discussed it. Nowadays they bring up Trump's pardons as some unthinkable line to cross, and they do so without any reference to what Biden did.

You'd think that the EU making more money from fining American companies, than from taxing it's own tech sector, would have shown that it is about hobbling the US tech sector, and the Tea App debacle ia just a happy coincidence.

As a confirmed MAGAt myself, I feel a distinct discomfort reading this warning.

For my part, I can kinda see what you mean, if I squint. Otherwise it's hard to tell if this is supposed to be a criticism of Trump / populists, or our current establishment.

In contrast, true societal stability is only found in the Family, the bedrock on which all civilization stands. And while the modern assault on the Family threatens to break civilization as assuredly as any barbarian uprising, it is still an institution that takes only two willing companions and the providence of God to initiate.

Yeah... Look, I'm a big fan of the "clean your room" approach to life and society, but it's a bit hard to gloss over the "modern assault on the Family" bit, the way you did. Are we supposed to smile and nod as it's happening? Is every rebellion an assault on order and civilization? If not, what specific lines has Trumpism crossed to make it unacceptable to civilization 'n order enjoyers?

If I want to show that two distributions are statistically different then I start with the assumption that they are not and then set out to disprove that.

And what assumption do you use when you want to show that they are the same? It's just a matter of how you formulate your question.

As a matter of technical statistical terminology, the null hypothesis when testing two groups for equality is that the relevant average (usually the mean, but median tests exist) is the same for both groups.

In this case we know for a fact the averages are not the same, the debate is over the causes.

No, for your monthly horoscope.

And come to think of it, even if there's no money involved, it sounds like the kind of person that would use astrology to tell you what decisions you should make, and/or win arguments.

Yeah but "intelligence is equally distributed among all human races" is a positive hypothesis of it's own, that's why you are effectively doing what he said.

I could see it this way, if she wasn't certified (or at least wouldn't bring it up without prompting).

A "certified X" offering to make you a Y for free reeks of someone trying to recruit you into an MLM.

If I bothered sending my own agent, it would be to actively stir shit, not merely to measure it.

I think there are some agitators that understand this and are using it to reinforce the image of ICE (and the larger right in general) as heartless jackbooted thugs

The problem I have with that theory is that as far as I can tell, it's always been their tactic. If anything, they seem surprised it's not working anymore.

Oh, ffs. Thanks!

EDIT: Sorry - I made a wrong turn somewhere.

Still no tinkering this week. How are you doing @Southkraut?

Not exactly, but kinda? How much weeping, how many top level posts about how "Everything Is Not Fine" do you see for LEOs that got killed? Everybody sees it as part of their job.

No "sort by controversial"? Lame.