@drmanhattan16's banner p

drmanhattan16


				

				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 September 05 17:01:12 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 640


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
drmanhattan16


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 17:01:12 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 640


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom New Old Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, it appears the latest (and seemingly last) set of Twitter Files has come out via Bari Weiss. Link.


This one is about what was going on inside Twitter after Jan 6th, 2021, but before the Trump ban.


It seems, as common sense entails, that employees who disliked Trump were growing more agitated over the refusal to ban him. Per Weiss, Twitter had always refused to ban him before, but the rising condemnation for Jan 6th from inside and outside was growing. People were aware that nothing he did violated the rules directly, hence one employee saying that he would "thread the needle of incitement."


In a bizarrely pro-Trump interpretation of his tweets, one staffer who was supposed to actually evaluate his tweets said that when Trump referred to "American Patriots" in a tweet, he wasn't referring to the rioters, but to people who voted for him. I have no idea why this person thought that the people who rioted weren't Trump supporters.


Edit: As pointed out in the responses, I think I've misinterpreted the above. I don't think this staffer intended to separate Trump's supporters from the rioters, but it could be read that way due to the informal nature of the slack chat.


Hell, the decision of the Trust and Safety team was that no, Trump's tweets about patriots or not going to the inauguration. An official named Anika Navaroli is cited as declaring the tweets acceptable for Twitter's policies, but Weiss tries casting bad faith on her testimony to the Jan 6th committee when she said that she had been trying for months to get people to realize that if Twitter did nothing, then "people were going to die". I don't know why Weiss thinks this is a contradiction, you can believe that someone skirts the line for incitement and that particular tweets don't cross the line.


There are some points made about how Twitter never banned other heads of state for things that were far more clearly in violation of Twitter's policies and which were allowed to stay up with the speaker not banned.


Anyways, the conversation at Twitter shifted once Gadde asked if his tweets could be seen as "coded incitement to further violence". This is the line that Twitter's "scaled moderation team" (no idea what that is) then began pushing as well, with the idea that if Trump was referring to the rioters when he said "American patriots", then it would be a violation.


There's also a point where some employees apparently started referring to the Banality of Evil, with Yoel Roth explaining that was an accusation that Twitter's policy enforcers were like Nazis obeying orders.


Anyways, Twitter banned Trump. Employees in favor of this celebrated and Weiss suggests they moved on to the topic of tackling medical misinformation.


I'm not really sure how to feel about this latest (last?) reveal. The annoying thing about this is nothing is being fully made public. There are no dumps of slack chats for people to gauge how the company's employees felt about all this, just the screenshots that are deemed appropriate to be shared. We ultimately have to trust that Weiss' depiction of these people as substantially demanding Trump be banned as reflecting the consensus, but there were clearly dissenters to this policy. You even have one person saying that they disagreed with the "Twitter doesn't arbitrate truth" policy but respected it nonetheless.


A point of interest to me: the TTS team's refusal to declare Trump's tweets to be in violation of policy, with agreement from some key staffers that no coded incitement was present. That's counter to the narrative being written about the TTS team with the other Twitter Files threads.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


At Twitter this incitement narrative appears to have been received without question.




There were clearly people in power who didn't agree with the narrative. That they were overruled doesn't mean they don't exist.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Nice retreat from "We didn't do anything!" to "Actually, what we did wasn't so bad."


Also, you seem to be forgetting all the actual violence directed from people who were straight, white, cis, and/or male towards those were not, and punished for it either.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That's a fine vision for America, but in a country where ~90% of citizens have European ancestry, what is that trying to say?




I'd point out that despite the perceived lack of ethnic Germans, just about everyone in that picture seems okay with each other. If anything, there's a strong message being sent about assimilation into the beliefs of the progressive West - a world in which they didn't let their national or religious backgrounds divide people into certain locations. Indeed, the two seemingly Middle Eastern characters don't mind being around people who are engaging in some fairly sinful (by Islamic standards) activities.


It's assimilation into a mindset that, while not totally Western, is certainly closer to the West than it is any other culture's.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Quality Contributions Report for February 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Because you're trying to shift the burden onto the people who are "election deniers," using terminology itself which is smuggling in your default position the election should be assumed to be legitimate unless there is a strong showing of facts to meet some high standard. It "seems reasonable" to do what? You think it's reasonable to have your default position and burden obligation and evidence standard. And that's fine by itself, but this language is all part of how you're attempting to simply assume the default position by fiat to shape the field against anyone who would question the results of the election.




What's the non-presumptive phrase to describe people who deny the 2020 election was legitimate, and why would it not be subject to the euphemistic treadmill?




much of the way the election was conducted was declared illegal after the election when the outcome could no longer be changed; much of the way the election was conducted in explicit contravention to state law, i.e., the "agreed-upon method"




What's the source for this?




Why would random people or even Trump be required to agree to the election is assumed legitimate standard because "his side" lost a bunch of court challenges about illegal election law changes?




"Required" is a strong word. But the case gets weaker with each failed court challenge. At some point, there's no vitality to it left.




the 2020 election wasn't decided by 7 million "votes," it was decided by 50,000 "votes" in 5 states




That's not the point. The point is that millions of voters, who I suspect didn't think they could ignore the results of another state simply because the laws in that state changed, still went out and voted for Trump.


This isn't, in other words, a case where a disinterested party is being approached to accept the validity of the 2020 election, this is a case with a very much interested party.




Ultimately, this still leaves me no more persuaded on the "and then?" part of Hlynka's position. Even assuming that the truth of the 2020 election is unknowable, why is there no obligation for those think Biden didn't win fairly to consider how much of their motivation is simply losing the election?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Thank you, I don't follow Chait and this piece just happened to cross my path. I do agree that that piece you linked is fairly indicative of Chait's bias towards being a conflict theorist.




This particular section is painful to read if you're familiar with Chait's techniques, but I think it's useful as an example more because it's the very same thing as it's trying to criticize. Does this look like a sober and honest description of Pushaw or her talk, or does it sounds like someone that thinks his job is to write the opposite of this? If I googled "independent media", do you think any examples on the front page would come across as any of the people or organizations that Pushaw mentioned in her talk? Do you think this is giving a good understanding of Pushaw's goals, or ability to predict the contents of her talk?




I think this example is somewhat problematic as I can't even find the talk itself. It's not on the youtube channel for the NCC, and even searching for it yields nothing. But the prior link does cast some doubt on it.




I don't think this is a good understanding of the concerns or purposes specific here. Pushaw et all's position is that, by providing support to existing left journalists, conservatives (and other weirdos) are providing tools to those left-journalists to not only present themselves as objective journalists, but also specific weapons to attack with...There's some economic costs to other media sources if Fox News-likes are the only place in Florida with video of a Governor's Press Conference, but the bigger impact is that a CBS devolved to trimming words out of other newspapers is far less likely to persuade people when doing that.




Another round of strong links, but I don't think it's going to have the impact you're claiming. I'd posit we're not, and may never have been, in a position where people hinge their politics on the view that the news orgs they consume are "objective journalists". The only people you'd reach are those without a strong political belief system themselves, but also diligent enough to verify what is being said. I'm not sure how many of these people even exist.


I've seen how people spread new news sites to others for "learning what happened", and it's often just a reflection of the person's own political views.


That said, I don't see how video rights necessarily come into it. The tactics are done in service of the politics, not vice versa. If they can't selectively edit their own videos, they'll do the same to other videos, and I'm pretty sure that you'd be allowed to do this in the first place under fair use.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 8, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I know that it’s popular wisdom that holocaust deniers are really, strongly motivated by hating Jews, but I think that is imputing on them a baseless and primitive psychology.




If I said that there were people who just hate white people, I think you would agree that such a motivation is entirely plausible, even if they say that they're just interested in questioning the mainstream narrative which casts white people in a fairly well-off light. Why can't the same hold for Holocaust deniers?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


group of open-minded free-thinkers




Don't self-aggrandize, you might actually believe your own hype.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, just a statement about what he actually thinks would be enough for me. I'm not on the anti-IH train.




Does every reference to che guevara have to result in a groveling apology for the crimes of communism?




If you insert sneaky references to Che and make videos portraying him in a positive light, then yeah, people are going to think you support Che. The "it's just a joke" thing is a valid defense if you actually explain your position as not defending him or just sticking it to the Che haters, otherwise you're remaining in ambiguity and might suffer some consequences if anti-Che sentiment becomes so powerful that they start demanding people be socially ostracized for any perceived defense of Che.


Is it good? Probably not. Is there a clear way out? Yes.




I don’t know why he bothered with the edgy jokes and dogswhistles. He should have simply called for the genocide of jews, then the presidents of harvard and co would find his behaviour compatible with a strongly inclusive code of conduct.




Can you indicate to me a prior instance in which a Harvard student was punished for stating "death to all (insert progressive-favored group here}" to no one in particular?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


At the moment, Nyberg has 13.3K followers on Twitter, which is a fairly high number considering her last post was in 2018.




People can forget to unfollow creators. There are YouTube channels with millions of subscribers that don't get more than a small fraction of that in terms of views. While some of this could be bots, it's also the case that people can just forget to remove a creator from their lists/feeds/follows. Remember, removing is an action, and unless you engage in periodic clean-up or you find a moral reason to dislike the account, you'd be disinclined to remove anyone.


Nyberg's real audience is probably much smaller than her listed count.




This is rather something that hasn't reached the mainstream because no mainstream news sources will report on it in any honest way, and the ones that do report on it from what I've seen have simply painted Nyberg as the victim, such as this Quartz article that alleges that Gamergate spread "baseless accusations of pedophilia" about Nyberg. The Young Turks were willing to cover her, but not to talk about her pedophilia - to talk about her Twitter bot. It seems that the mainstream certainly doesn't consider her insignificant enough not to report on at all, rather they would rather just not report on her in the "wrong" way.




While Quartz had an obligation to make their statements factual, I don't think TYT have to cover the pedophilia allegations if they don't think it's relevant. A story about a bot that angers alt-righters is engaging enough for the left as it is.




I'm not saying she was as nearly as big a deal as Sarkeesian or Wu, but this situation most certainly wasn't a complete nothingburger, either.




I don't think it's a nothingburger either. But I don't think Nyberg is or should be anything other than a third or fourth point at best when talking about how Gamergate was villified by the mainstream. She's just too niche for it to be that strong unless you're a terminally online person with an interest in what is now part of the Internet's ancient history.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I just said context matters. Why are you trying to get me to say that it doesn't?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Okay, that's fair. I think my overall point stands, however - they're not particularly worried about those flags.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Your post is a bit on the snarky and sarcastic side, but I do see the point a little bit. If we're keeping a little perspective, this is still just an internet forum we're talking about.




It's not just that. It's the fact that people here act so blindly hateful some times that they will celebrate literally anything if you frame it as hurting the "Blue tribe". Doesn't matter how far you go to the right, it's all about hurting the left.


We call that waging the culture war, and the reason I call it out here is because we're supposed to be above that fucking shit. What the fuck is the point of having a platform where people are supposed to set aside their biases if people get upvotes for doing the exact opposite?


Goddamn, this place prides itself as having better discussion norms for freer debate, and yet the number one thing I see here are a bunch of slaves parroting the same talking points every single time. You point to the existence of /r/SPS, but I literally hate their kind as well! The difference is that I never expected any better from their kind.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The difference matters a great deal.


Firstly, it keeps our worst impulses in check. It is too easy for people to assume the worst of others and also generalize off of that assumption. So "some progressives hate white people" becomes "progressives hate white people".


If we're here to culture war, by all means, go ahead and engage in this kind of generalization. If we're not, then it's actively harmful to the effort.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Reddit is not going to die even if the TPAs all go away. There's hardly a better platform for communities to gather in one place with easy discoverability of related communities. The people at AskHistorians have said that they constantly debate this and most don't like the idea of having to go to one site just for that. Reddit has inertia and network effects on its side.


July 1st will come and go, and I guarantee most of the big subs will remain right where they are, doing the same as they did before the change.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 1, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
HBomberGuy has a video in which he documents a case where people who watch Sean Hannity demonstrated their anger with Keurig's decision to back out of showing ads during his show. This was in response to Hannity supposedly defending Roy Moore. He shows videos that were posted of people destroying their coffee machines.


Or is this a case where there was no intention to ever boycott, just a few people getting angry?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 1, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Where do they live though? Wages w/o considering their COL is likely missing something.


That said, there's probably a networking bonus for people who live there (meet other writers, producers, directors, etc.). So doing remote work isn't totally feasible for that (there are small day-to-day interactions that even a quarterly convention/meeting cannot capture the value of).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It is performative and the reaction was way more negative than they expected - even the Queen gave them shit!




I don't see how you say it is performative if they, as you argue, believe what they are doing something moral. It's not performative for me to do X if I think it is a moral thing to do, even if I don't necessarily think about it fully when I do it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 6, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The appropriate analogy would be "don't tell a trans person you don't think they're the gender they claim to be", not "don't tell people their evaluation of your sex doesn't match what you say it is".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I also personally think that men are more loyal, generous and less cruel then women in certain circumstances, but it is extremely hard to find any papers that would paint men in better light then women.




What convinced you that the issue was the papers were being suppressed instead of a lack of evidence for your belief?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It's just so far out of the realm of possibility that Ukraine captures Crimea, let alone the other lands that were taken. It would cause hundreds of thousands of military deaths on both sides. And hundreds of billions of dollars. Minimum.




I don't have any illusions about the sheer difficulty of even coming close to Crimea, let alone actually taking it. This war is going to be slow, I accept that. I recognize that a lot of people have died and many more will continue to die. As for money, the US is drowning in it. If that can be thrown around to send Russia on a path away from its current one (and hopefully not one even worse than this), that's a wise investment.




The theory that if we don't stop Putin here he'll take over Poland, then the Baltics, then the world! It's Hitler at Munich all over again unless we DO SOMETHING!




I have no idea who you're even referring to or how popular this conception even is. The stronger argument you should contend with is the message this sends to every other wannabe conquerer in the world, in particular China.




Yes, if we spend a couple trillion dollars and send in troops we can push Russia back to the 1991 borders. Maybe there won't even be a nuclear exchange.




The odds of nuclear exchange are very, very low. You should look up Russia's nuclear doctrine, it states that it won't use those nukes unless its actual core territory is threatened. What it has taken in Georgia might qualify, Crimea and the other Ukrainian gains are highly unlikely to count.




How much of the cost are you personally willing to bear? Would you spend $10k of your own money, $100k, volunteer in Ukraine, fight in Ukraine?




If I could donate $10k and be guaranteed that enough people would do so to ensure Ukraine is stocked to the gills on modern military tech? I think that would be a reasonable offer. I have human impulses that keep me from doing as much, but I can't really justify those. I am unlikely to have $100k any time soon, but depending on how much of my savings that would translate to, sure.


As for volunteering or enlisting? I'm a homebody. Not really my thing, and I wouldn't change that any time soon. But I admitted as much in my original comment to you, I said I have very little personal stake in the conflict. The closest is having a Ukrainian friend.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
How did the left flip on these ideas? What invasion were they okay with?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, yes, I know that you and many others think that progressives are acting bad faith. Unless you think that I'm doing the same, which my history and my responses in this very thread clearly doesn't support, then you should address my actual arguments.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"The Founding Fathers were racist" is not a trivial statement in this case. It is very much an important idea that both sides grapple with in their critiques and rebuttals of said critiques. I don't know how you can say that this is a case of "Internet literalism" when it's a crucial point in the CRT edifice. Hell, this is literally one of the basis facts of the 1619 project. Rufo would 100% deliberately trash this because it constitutes a major attack on his stance.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Rufo himself declared CRT to be wrong on everything. Robinson was challenging him precisely on the question of what they had gotten wrong when they described the Founding Fathers as racist. How is Robinson supposed to engage with Rufo on the validity of his claims about CRT if not by challenging something as basic as this?