covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The implication here is that we mainly have an epistemology crisis.
Most people aren't going to be as competent and trained in argumentation to spot these evasions but a big problem our society has is that even our "elites" can't spot them when the evasions are done as long as they're being done for reasons the NYT would support.
Implicitly their epistemology is "believe the implication of the NYT - don't look for the missing factual content or added non-factual content".
Very few people can reason out an epistemology on their own - most need to be educated in it. At the very least almost everyone needs to read about it and to do that one would have to find the right reading material. This means there's a lot of power in getting to set the ground rules of evaluating claims and installing a faulty epistemology - look at wikipedia and how it launders progressive claims through the "reliable sources" rule. The wikipedia rules are rules for deciding what should get printed on the site which implicitly makes them rules about discerning truth.
Progressives want to install rules like "trust the NYT" (which wikipedia has as a literal rule) because progressives known that other progressives control those institutions. Progressives still have a back door of "ignore the NYT when it says things we don't want to hear", of course.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Are you implying that "get woke go broke" is going to actually work to restrain progressive religious proselytizing in tech?
Here's how it will actually work - prog approve companies that filter their results in prog approved ways will be permitted to use the payments system and ones that don't, won't. VCs won't fund the compute time to build an ungimped model because "you'll just get cut off from the banking system anyway" (if the VC doesn't already share the prog goals, that is).
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Micheal Bloomberg demonstrates that you cannot allow progs any power or voice because they actually hate good governance because it's good governance.
Here's the cycle:
Traditional methods controlled crime pretty well
Progs wanted to undermine traditional methods and had a broad spectrum attack on them - legal about "rights" mainly (case clearance rates drop precipitously after the Warren court inventions)
As a way to head off a reaction to their attack, they create nonsense social science where they claim that crime cannot be solved without addressing "root causes" - the root causes being lack of programs. You see echos of this with the modern "trained deescalation personnel instead of police"
Progs win, crime skyrockets throughout the 60s and 70s, plateaus in the 80s and jumps in the 90s
Over time progs come to believe their own lies about "root causes" - that's what they're taught in universities and what trickles down from there
Giuliani / Bratton introduce the idea of addressing crime by addressing crime - Giuliani won in NYC due to support from more blue collar whites and progressives didn't go full out against him because they knew addressing crime by addressing crime couldn't work - it didn't solve the "root causes"
It did work, gets copied in lots of places - progressives are horrified by the decline in crime and pretend that concern over racial injustice is the reason they object to doing things that actually do lower crime - these objections escalate over time
Bloomberg is able to hold out against these objections because he's more entrenched but progressives elect the next mayor who basically undoes it all
Ultimately the problem is that their objection to enforcing the law isn't based on anything that they say it is - the racial unfairness angle falls apart under inspection - their objection is to anything effective. That's the only way to make sense of their behavior because every single thing done was done still under the framework they set out as being within the rules. No executions, no speedy trials, no executive authority vested in cops, no approval of men defending themselves, etc. - just very PMC style "dispatch the cops who follow proper procedure and protocols that follow every explicit progressive rule". There are no crime control measures that are effective that they will support and if they support it and it turns out to be effective, they'll withdraw support when it's shown to be effective.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Funny enough
https://twitter.com/annecollier/status/1600889250761027585
This is from today - looks like the progressive entryists don't just all disappear when the technically formal ownership of an organization changes.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The difference is that you don't need to look for reasons why the Tsarist government was so bloodthirsty because it wasn't.
When you are looking over Soviet governance you have to answer the question of "why were they so downright genocidal against Russians?". Ethnic animus is one of the answers that is on the table.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
More accurately, everyone wants the ends - the society that would exist that way but almost every erosion that progressives put through was individually popular.
"Cut cost disease" is exactly the same as "get rid of public sector feather bedding" AND "get rid of 'reasonable environment protections'" AND "get rid of simple rules to ensure justice in hiring", etc.
Ultimately it's a case that the framework of rules that progressives push for that is somewhat popular simply because it permeates all society is "everything must be approved of by a committee using lots of words to ensure fairness". None of it changes without a cultural change and it takes something pretty extreme to change a culture that way.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
(It's actually not at all clear to me that the subset of right-wingers who claim to value sexual propriety orders of magnitude higher than anything else are actually best served by opposing "the Cathedral". All things considered, the woke tribe is pretty puritan in its own ways
Yes, the woke tribe is very Puritan when it comes to any healthy sexual expression - their rules are basically "if it forms families and produces children it is to be condemned and if it makes that less likely, it is to be promoted".
"Less sex" isn't a terminal right-wing value.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
He's very light-skinned but has highly African features. I'd guess closer to quadroon or even mulatto than octoroon.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Link?
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
More so inside the Soviet Union than in America, though.
More likely to find a Pravda believer on the faculty at Yale than in Moscow.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
and avoid addressing any of the counterarguments I and others have made.
Blatantly false.
An example - your argument:
For this to be true, you would have to explain why so many blacks are in prison.
Addressed here:
Because they commit an absurd amount of crime - most of which is "unsolved", a good portion of which is unreported.
If you want to ask for evidence for this then you run right into progressive "manipulation of procedural outcomes" - progressive academics straight up lie so you have to go to anecdotal evidence that nonetheless contains valuable statistical information and that shows that, yes, blacks are basically immune to the law. An example elsewhere in this thread was a black guy who killed a few people in a home invasion who served 4 years of an 8 year sentence then killed someone else when released. You can find dozens of examples on the NY Post twitter feed of "this person was arrested 47 times on felony charges previously". To which you rebut "Chinese robber" but the argument implied there is one that assumes the conclusion. "You can find examples of anything because there are a lot of people" is the general argument but it's simply impossible to find examples "arrested 47 times, committed a newsworthy crime" where the perp wasn't black - certainly you can't find dozens of examples of this. You can't find videos of whites behaving the way blacks do such that there's a joke "new Street Fighter level just dropped" when you can watch a new video on a daily basis of blacks having mass brawls in public.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
If someone still has an outstanding commercial mortgage on their vineyard in Napa, that is going to increase the price of the wine produced
Fixed costs don't change prices for profit maximizing businesses.
If they could make more profit charging more (or less), they'd charge more (or less).
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
because he assumed that the press would not believe anything he had to say
"Believe"? The theory is that they're part of the conspiracy.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The thing they're not lazy about is making sure they have ownership of a clip before they play it on air since the system of who/whom that we call a legal system actually recognizes media ownership claims as important (for now at least) so they would have obtained rights to the video before playing it.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
On one level, sure this is how they can choose to operate but the caveat is that this clearly means that twitter would be open to the charge that they are operating as a publisher - with all the potential liability that comes with that. On the other hand, the court system in the US in 2022 is run by people with the same outlook as Vajaya Gadde so legal consistence isn't something that can be expected - it all runs on who / whom now.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
They put him in a position where any move was a losing one.
Cover it up, get him on the cover-up and then it becomes (stupid) conventional wisdom - "the cover-up is what gets you" (which doesn't apply when you're (for example) Sandy Berger who only got two years probation for removing and destroying classified material from the National Archives). If he doesn't cover-up then they get him on the crime and never mention this floating hypothesis that "the cover-up is the real crime".
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Except that progressives hated that Bloomberg's policies worked and only Bloomberg's persistence in the face of progressive opposition (rare) and the level of power he was able to exercise as mayor (also rare) allowed them to continue. Bloomberg would even point out when asked about stop and frisk "disproportionally" targeting blacks that blacks weren't stopped and frisked disproportionally compared to the population of felons.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
they do some photos in a normal-looking house with a kid, and someone suggests the kid hold the bear. The people involved either don't associate the bear-bag's outfits with sex (plenty of people have never seen leather fetish outfits in any context other than maybe news footage of a gay pride parade), don't consider it their job to ask about it, or consider the connection so abstract that it doesn't occur to them it might be controversial.
This does not fit at all with who would be doing a high end fashion photo shoot.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
There was some such overlap during WW2, but I imagined they somewhat purged themselves for obvious reasons after the break with USSR?
Why would you think that instead of the opposite?
There were communists in the OSS and CIA when the US was supposedly in a conflict with the USSR - IOW, when there would have been pressure on them to hide that fact.
After the collapse of the USSR there's been a CIA director who voted for CPUSA - any pressure to hide radical left wing affiliations is long gone.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
For Hoteps, it's an even better find: white people are literally less pure humans than Black people. My distant European ancestors literally interbred with a dying outmoded pre-human hominid species, and my Nigerian friend can quite frankly state that his did not, that he's a pure human! Yakub vindicated! The white man's own science has found that the white man isn't a real human, but a hybrid chimera!
Not actually correct though since Africans have between 9 and 19% DNA admixture from a ghost hominid population.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The Soviets having the bomb soon afterward was also directly due to the efforts of a network of spies that were predominately Jewish.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Amazingly "optimistic" of you to think they didn't do any due diligence rather then that they did it and didn't care at all.
They had to watch the video to edit it down to what they showed.
NYT only doesn't lie so that when they do it has the maximum chance of being believed when they do - a problem which is not unique to NYT but is shared by everyone who explicitly or implicitly has a utilitarian ethical framework.
More options
Context Copy link