cuwurious_strag_CA
No bio...
User ID: 190
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
so you've got nothing
just "It’s a common belief among early-reading experts that roughly forty per cent of children can learn to read fluently without much direct instruction. “Those are the people who grow up to say, ‘I don’t remember how I learned to read; I just did it,’ ” Leah Wasserman, a pediatric speech-language pathologist in Brooklyn, told me. “But about sixty per cent need some level of explicit instruction, and those kids are not going to do well with Teachers College"
I think they are. An unstructured version of it
sure, but 'whole word' style also has portions of an unstructured version of phonics! just showing single-syllable words together with their pronunciation is enough for that. And that's enough for a particularly smart kid to learn from.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Yeah, it's weird to talk to a 130IQ far-right person who claims "HBD! IQ is everything! White people are 100IQ in the US and black people are 85. The race is all that matters." (not that you can directly compare a "30 point iq difference" and a "15 point iq difference" using '15 * 2 = 30', it's just a rank order turned into a normal distribution, but the difference is significant). However, this just makes the 'problem' worse
Edge cases / thought experiments help tease out subtle inaccuracies that may point to deeper problems. "What happens when you divide a piece of matter in half a hundred times" is a weird edge case, yet atoms. "If the laws of physics were different, what happens" is a very useful approach to physics!
For the specific edge cases: Plenty of people declare they are 'nonbinary' with very little change in the way they present themselves or """"perform gender"""". I know a few people who say they are trans, but still act almost entirely like men/women, but that's rare.
IV is clearly something that happens, physically. There are some cases where less-masculine teenagers are bullied constantly, and then transition, and then are 'supported'. And the question is - are these people 'really trans', and what does that mean? Is it possible for someone to transition for reasons other than 'truly being a woman, like, feeling it'?
(Personal opinion: 'people are supported for transitioning, which is why they do it' is, least for mtf, less common than 'everyone thought i was weird / my parents and friends hated it / i was very scared and didnt come out for years').
V and VI are far-out hypotheticals, ofc.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
"Those other guys are jumping off of bridges. Why shouldn't I be able to do that too?"
Because the point of 'accepting claims', in this context, is to actually figure out if abortion is good or bad, what relevance that has to law, and use that knowledge and the way one comes to it in other areas as well. "Abortion is domestic violence" doesn't mean anything other than "i don't like abortion for some other reason", and throwing terrible justifications at each other is pointless. Believing it makes you dumber, and less able to figure out the right approach to abortion, and anything else. What about children transitioning? Domestic violence! AI art? Theft from the WORKING CLASS. Banning affirmative action is LITERALLY jim crow. TheMotte isn't a TV ad for a state senate race, and the latter shouldn't even exist.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
That doesn't change the point at all - if that happens at all (and it does), then arrest people who are knowingly breaking the law, instead of people who were told they could vote!
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
It's both a little trick that's selectively used in cases where they agree with the conclusion and something they actually believe in a vague sense - vaguely like "this is a woman, i am a man, i am privilege, i cannot disagree with her , because it's socially unacceptable and hurts oppressed person". It's usually not knowingly or intentionally disingenuous.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
But you're just using the way in which domestic violence is "very bad", which is something about how women are vulnerable and get really hurt, but that doesn't apply at all to abortion. Also, murder is worse than domestic violence, and abortion is domestic violence 'only because' aortion is murder, so how can this help?
Yelling at a child when they're about to put a fork in an electrical outlet and you're 100 feet away from them is literally hurting a child's feelings. But - it isn't ... bad.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Agree. Plagues: happen every hundred years at least for all of human history, covid was a very minor plague in comparison, monkeypox too, both were much better than AIDS or smallpox. Terrorists: terrorist have been winning for much of the past hundred years, again, no change. Third world war: ... these have also been constantly happening for the past hundred years, not causal. Schools teach: I don't think explicit homosexual sex is taught in any significant number of american schools.
Healthcare-assisted euthanasia is a poor example of right- ideas being correct, anyway. For starters, it's very uncommon, and even moreso for people who don't have terminal diseases / are old. And - innocent, weak people die all the time because of the state, says leftists. "people should have to work to make food" is reactionary tinged. Is it bad when a homeless person starves because the state didn't give them housing and welfare? What about when someone dies of some rare cancer "because" the state didn't give them the $500k experimental treatment? And those happen way, way more! It's not a very close comparison, but the much higher frequency of the latter, and the fact that in both cases, the end is 'innocent exploited person dies'...
Whereas something like low TFR, casual sex above having children, pointless simulacra consumer media culture, slave morality and last man, those are large-scale claims about society that every person is claimed to personally experience, and are thus much more important.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
I think you misunderstood my claim - if ESG is a trojan horse, it is trojan horse number twelve million, and the trojans are just the accepted and beloved leaders and owners of your city. The trojan horse is just the horse the king's messenger rides down to your city every three months to hand out edicts, it's not a secret. If the marxists have already - successfully - ""subverted"" you several hundred times (given lindsay's arguments, critical race theory is literally law! since 1964!) - you're not "fighting subversion", you've already lost, and need to stop getting mad at random, small demonstrations of that loss and ineffectively voting and posting about it and actually understand the loss
So the comment earlier is that eradication of gender identity end goal Marxism as observed by Leo Strauss in 1960s
I have no idea what this means, precise language really is useful. If you mean 'eradication of gender identity is the end goal of marxism' ... I'd expect it to be explicitly a stateless, classless society for the many - the poor and tired and beaten down given life anew, wants satisfied, labor used for the laborers, not the exploiters. While communists were generally 'progressive' on gender issues, to call that 'the end goal' of marxism is just wrong.
I continue to believe that the climate crisis and the resource crisis continue to cause a large (not existential, but still considerable) threat to the stability of the modern society
How does climate change threaten - at all - the stability of modern society? Let's say one of the worse posited outcomes happens, and hundreds of millions of africans or poor south asians are displaced - but europe, china, the US, etc manage any disruption technologically. How does this threaten 'the stability of modern society' at all? If 20% of the population dropped dead, or a dozen random cities got wiped off the map, inhabitants included, it'd be unfortunate, but society would survive - and climate change will do much less than that to the US or europe. (and we know this from history - plagues and wwi/ii).
Also: what's the "resource crisis"?
international human rights treaty framework to be an important fundamental stabilizing civic myth
What is the myth specifically? Most people believe less in 'international human rights treaties' and more in a general sense that rights and democracy are necessary for all that is good, and specifically all that is good for happiness and prosperity for the people, especially the disadvantaged. This isn't really a myth, just a set of values and claims about their benefits. Do you mean that individual or collective rights aren't independent goods but rough gestures towards things that are generally contingently beneficial, but it's better for people to believe that protecting "rights" has some independent meaning or value beyond that contingency in some deontological vs consequential sense? I think the difference is deeper - everyone ("progressives") wants happiness and prosperity and freedom from want for all, and the larger part of 'international human rights' are just direct attempts to accomplish that - as opposed to (variously) struggle, complexity, duty, nation, race, beauty, etc.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
It doesn’t need to be taught because our brains have been fine-tuned by evolution to learn language and grammar for at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years
... sure, but written language shares that language and grammar, so it seems reasonable to expect some of that to transfer to written language. Compare to sign language - it's also quite recent, and uses physical motions that are seen with the eye (as is writing), but has the same complexity of grammar as normal language, also using the "same brain regions" (but take that with a grain of salt, because what do those regions actually mean)?
Evolution has not had time to optimize our brains to learn to read. Same with math, same with driving. These things have to be taught
Eh. Driving could be learned by experimentation and experience if not for the strict societal rules. And math is just really complicated and novel. Whereas the fairly close correspondence between written langauge and spoken language suggests they might be learned in the same way!
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
In general, empirical psych / social science is not something you can just read a bloomberg article about a meta-analysis and conclude it's accurate. A meta-analysis concluding priming worked or growth mindset worked would've had similarly positive articles written about them ten years ago.
In this case, it's accurate in a sense - although less that 'women aspire to leadership roles less', as women, moreso although like men, aspire to whatever other people think they should aspire to - so if you polled people who are raised to say 'im a woman women can do leadership yay' they might just answer leadership on the poll at the same rate as men (i dont think they do but its possible). But men are generally going to put much more effort and independent effort into anything in general, are more interested in leading / being on top, etc, be more aggressive in getting it, etc.
it's a widely known and uncontested fact that testosterone promotes status seeking behaviors. Why was that not the null hypothesis
"status" is not a useful way to approach this, way too general. Women also seek status, status might just ... mean something different than men seeking status. maybe a high status man is shaman or strong warrior, a high status woman is ... desired by many men, the wife of high status man, idk.
Given that women are, naturally, the most ardent students/researchers in academic studies, how the fuck did none of them, when thinking about the reason there are less women in leadership positions, think to observe the basic fact that they themselves do not aspire to a leadership position??
well, they did! They were actually quite mad about not having leadership positions, oppression, etc. This doesn't mean the same thing as 'directly and aggressively pursuing it', though. Not that their claims make any sense, but they did think that at least a bit.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
They follow what other people do - and - they want to get a non-racist republican elected.
The same happened with trump, right? Shouldn't all the anti-trump people have still been there after the primary?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
the point is that, if the only reason you're calling it "marxism" is that above, then ... it isn't marxism, because those kinds of conflicts have existed for millenia.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Conservatives would not be happy with calling transwomen 'ladyboys' but treating them the exact way, socially, as women. (Notably, ... if you are treating something the exact same way as a woman, then calling it "woman" isn't that much of a stretch). It'd be nice if they'd argue that, though
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
I am not personally causing the kid to die
Well, you are causing it in the sense that your actions could cause the child to live and they aren't. And the EA argument is that this is the part of "causing the child to die" that matters, and that even without the "cause" the fact that the child is dying is the problem, and not anything about whether you, like, intended it.
If the kid is one year and eleven months old, and I'm its parent, I can leave it to drown by Singer's own moral calculus.
"Republicans care deeply about unborn life, but abandon the child after it's born". Is this an argument for abortion? Just because singer makes another bad argument, doesn't directly affect the first argument.
and I haven't seen any leaders talk about COVID as a tragedy or natural disaster
Thursday by President Joe Biden, marking a long-dreaded milestone for an incomprehensible tragedy. "Today, we mark a tragic milestone: one million American lives lost to COVID-19. One million empty chairs around the dinner table. Each an irreplaceable loss.
blurb of the third DDG result for 'biden covid tragedy'
A large fraction of people believe COVID was a lab leak from some combination of China and the US, but there is no discussion about
covid lab leak discussion has solidly entered the mainstream over the past year. There's still a lot of people saying its not ok to say it and racist, but 'centrists' have openly discussed it for a while.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Why would someone who is smart enough to evade LEO detection for years on end bother with a criminal enterprise at all unless it was extremely lucrative and, perhaps, didn't carry a massive jail sentence on the other end
Some people are smart but dumb in some specific ways, some people just like committing crime, idk, it clearly happens. The smartest violent-crime-adjacent criminals are probably doing things like international drug trade logistics as opposed to smashing windows, and there's tens of thousands of smart people who are 'criminals' in that they're running scams or doing white collar crime, which often pays better for less risk.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
You - and all other social conservatives - want to keep children away from sex education so they get pregnant young, maybe not consensually, and then deny them abortions to force them to have children.< / blockquote >
Obviously that's not true! At all! Some conservatives do dislike the current form of sex eduction, and some conservatives don't want minors to have abortions. A few even claim they don't want raped minors to have abortions. but they don't want ... all of that, above. Most of them would prefer the minor doesn't get pregnant young, in particular! You can do this for any controversial position. Democrats are RACIST and have JEWISH QUOTAS IN COLLEGES just like HITLER!
Similarly, trans activists would not say "i want to mutilate and sterilize children. and i'm jerking off as I type this. Hail Marx."
That is the terminal reality of living as trans. Being permanently medicalized, mutilated and sterilized
The point of charitability rules here is that people don't generally discuss 'children being sterilized and mutilated', or 'hitler jew segregation racism', in a particularly useful way. While I'd rather have a totally-freeze-peach style moderation where you can say whatever you want and get moderated if it's not useful, there's clearly a correlation between the two. What productive response do you expect your interlocutors to have to "you are literally mutilating children!" How does that work!
Ideally, the interlocutor would carefully investigate the meaning of that, referring to many irl examples, and figure out precisely what is happening to children, how it matters, how it relates to the traditional nature of sex and modernity or whatever. But, again, that doesn't usually happen when you call someone a "child mutilator".
The thing is, sometimes things as bad as "child mutilation" do happen. And trans may be even, in a broad sense, as bad as "child mutilation". So saying mean-sounding things can be useful, when they are happening. But saying 'child mutilation' doesn't help at all, it just says it's something bad ... happening ... to children. But the disagreement is if it's bad, if wearing girl underwear and getting euphoria <...>s are bad, if HRT and SRS are bad, etc. Both sides are aware that is happening to children. And it distracts from the fact that all of that is happening whether or not teachers push it, because people are coming across it on the internet and deciding to do it themselves. (even censoring the internet isn't a good option!)
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
You're right generally but clearly there's something different about the modern 'religions' that don't actually worship any deities, observe any miracles, sacrifice goats, etc, right?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
A lot of white nationalists, groypers, "alt-right" people, do explicitly claim the "white race" is superior to other races generally, in a way that a critique like this does sort of attack. They do just say 'white men built civilization, we can't have foreigners as they aren't civilization", and sometimes-made rhetorical claims that germans / anglos / nordics (often used to just mean anglos/germans) are 'the most superior' aren't really taken seriously. Although this critique seems weaker than "what's going on with all the jewish and asian and some middle eastern nobel prize winners or ceos tho"
Those who are predisposed against spending time professionally in close quarters with strangers are fine in an agrarian society
Is "tendency to spend time professionally in close quarters with strangers" even a distinct "trait" that is solely or mostly genetic, like fur color? I'm fairly sure that if you took a bantu or hunter gatherer fetus and implanted them into a mother in Kowloon Walled City, when they grew up they'd be entirely used to, and find natural, being around so many other people. They might have other problems, but people are intelligent and work in the culture and environment they're born into.
We're talking about weeding out or magnifying certain existing traits that are known to have significant heritable components
Sure, and I agree a change like some behavior-related alleles becoming 30% more common can't be excluded. But there are a ton of possible changes those could cause, and the way they interact with 'culture' is probably complicated and contingent, such that claiming this "determines" culture in any sense is probably wrong.
As a thought experiment, if only one in three blond people reproduced in each generation, I hope it's obvious that we'd dramatically reduce the proportion of blond people within three generations. It wouldn't take long at all.
We have genetic material for populations in the last 200 years though, and I don't think any alleles were that strongly selected. And most of ones that were mostly selected were - iirc, i'd have to look again - diet or disease related, as opposed to brain, and none nearly so much as 'blondes have children at 1/3 the rate of brown haired'.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Fortunately in this case, it is very dumb evidenced by the fact that the theory is logically inconsistent in just about every level of analysis
Sure, but this is also true of 'all people are equal and we should love everyone', 'the Christian god exists and He is three persons co-equal in one substance', most schools of moral philosophy, and a lot of stuff people believe. My argument isn't "you should consider it because it might be right", it's "you should consider it because it's worth figuring out why people believe it" (same for all of the former). Also, it is currently winning.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
like domestic violence, is violence within a context where there is a special duty of not committing violence, specifically, within the family
Yeah, but that's only held to be true in cases like 'beating' or 'spanking', not for murder. I don't think anyone recognizes the idea that murder should be punished more because it's against a family member. And most people would find it very strange to call 'a father killing their 5yo child' domestic violence. The bad parts of domestic violence - the idea that a husband can 'psychologically manipulate' a wife or something, the battered wife, or the vulnerable child - don't make any sense in abortion, given that a hospital is administering it, the fetus can't talk or take action, etc.
Responding to this and all the other comments - yes, it's dumb when the ATF does stuff like this, they internally and externally justify it on procedural / justice grounds in addition to people on twitter saying 'assault rifles banned good maga mass school shooter incel republican bad', and it's dumb when desantis does it too, that is the argument
More options
Context Copy link