drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
(Side note: since we live in the clown world, I feel compelled to add a disclaimer that the word "barbarian" is used in purely descriptive, not pejorative, meaning - as "somebody who is not part of the imperial culture" - and, in fact, for the purposes of this definition, I am a barbarian myself and many of my friends are Barbarian-Americans)
It has nothing to do with "clown world", you are straight up analogizing the US to older empires that were far more explicitly formulated on a racial or ethnic basis, likewise analogizing illegal immigrants as less-civilized. You are free, of course, to idiosyncratically define "barbarian" as those who don't belong to the culture of the US (insofar as such a thing exists). But let's not pretend that this is some "clown world" shit, and that everyone in a "saner" world would understand that you weren't trying to insult those who are the "barbarians" here. It was an insult long before the advent of the "clown world".
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
If you want a peaceful transition of power, you need to be able to convince the losers that they lost fairly and that they have more to gain by continuing to work within the system than they have to lose by checking out of it or blowing it up.
Is there a responsibility, in your view, for the losers to examine if their real objection might not be principled, but literally over just losing?
drmanhattan16
7mo ago
I am not on the left, so can't comment on why they seem to support it so strongly. My suspicion is that 4 years martingaling[1] the claims about Russian interference in our elections have built Russia and Putin into something resembling a Marvel comic villain and/or the nazis.
Most charitable themotte.org explanation ever! It can't be that people on the left genuinely don't agree with the idea of a war to annex territory or conquer another sovereign nation, it must be that they have a childish and wrong view of Russia.
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
I think part of the point is, people will have to come out and identify as election deniers. The next thing, they're being accused of supporting the Jan 6th coup, wanting to overthrow the legitimate government, and being a fully-signed up fascist.
There's plenty of election deniers who openly admit to it and would probably have no problem with it even in conversations with strangers. What has happened to them that is bad?
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
That sounds like a Russel conjugation. "I show reality as it is, you show a vulgar political display." Hardly that convincing, nor do I think it requires a hatred of white consumers.
Race matters in Tolkein in a way that white progressives, by virtue of their white upbringings, simply cannot grasp. Ignorance is not malice.
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
Am I misremembering, or was this the one in which Fox was shown to have peddled the idea that Dominion's voting machines were rigged but not even the hosts saying it believed what they were saying?
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
That means you don't really even want elections, right? You just want negotiations over policy. Because if the losers, as I suspect, are a bit more motivated by losing than they claim to be, then no amount of proof would work because they don't care about proof in the first place.
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
If the claim in court, where you do need to be very specific, was that people weren't allowed in, but they were and just kept far away, then the claim should reflect that, right?
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
From your report's summary:
There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. In all likelihood, more eligible voters cast ballots for Joe Biden than Donald Trump. We found little direct evidence of fraud, and for the most part, an analysis of the results and voting patterns does not give rise to an inference of fraud.
Seems like this is the key takeaway for anyone.
Is your ultimate point that elections have security issues, or that the 2020 election was actually stolen from Trump? People who want to argue the first are free to do so, I'm open to the idea that we can tighten election security, especially for state and local elections (where more serious claims appear to be made).
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
I'm not entirely sure that's the reasoning behind the original comment. This site has quite a few people who seem unwilling or outright incapable of speaking about trans people without words or a tone of deep disgust. Note that joyful didn't say "Why do you use the pronoun she for a male?", but rather "why do you use the pronoun she for a male pedophile?" This should increase the likelihood of this being a disgust response in our eyes.
But even we granted that this is just about objective reality, it wouldn't have an impact on pronoun policy. There is no inconsistency between your view and the idea that one should respect the pronouns of others.
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
They are slurs when people use them with the intention of a put-down, not because they inherently denigrate "normal people", whatever that means.
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
Will this hamper the power of jannies to continue to turn Reddit into a woke echochamber?
The fact that this is where the conversation always goes is telling.
This is a blanket change that affects a great many people of all political ideologies. You might as well ask if a planet colliding with the Earth is harmful to Globohomo.
drmanhattan16
7mo ago
if someone decided to make a mod that changed some pixels from brown to beige, it tells us that that person decided to make a mod that changed some pixels from brown to beige, which falls into the latter, but not the former.
Man, if I killed someone with a gun, I'd love to have you as my defense attorney. "My client didn't intend to kill someone, your honor, he just pulled a piece of metal/plastic on a product he owned while it was aimed at a person for two minutes straight!"
Seriously, what kind of argument even is this? How far do you take this idea that the only thing you can infer from what mods a person downloads is that they downloaded it? By this logic, I could download a mod that changed "white" to "cracker" or "cracker-colored" and no one should assume I'm being racist.
Again, in that SV example, it is, by itself, absolutely not enough to say the person is racist. Is it enough to imply that that modder is more likely to be racist than the typical SV modder or player? It might be, and it might not be, and we haven't done the hard empirical work to figure out which.
So great to hear you agree with me!
drmanhattan16
7mo ago
Is single-issue posting really such a problem?
Yes, very much so. Humans treat "How many times they've seen a thing happen" as equivalent to "How big a problem is this thing". Our minds, left unchecked, will make this conclusion for us, but we have a name for it - the Chinese Robber Fallacy. Or, if you want a less politically salient example, YouTube's algorithm rewards daily uploads instead of high-quality uploads. While new content has its value, this results in people posting low-quality garbage that is often directed at kids at a higher volume.
It's not SS that is inherently the problem. It's everyone who posts frequently about the same things, because the world is big enough that you could make two or three threads discussing the same basic idea ("progressives do X", "conservatives do Y", etc.) without actually having anything of value to say, but driving the point about some connections in the world into people's minds.
There is an argument to be had that we need people to scrupulously report on every instance of something happening so we can pull from a bigger body of facts to establish a narrative or trend. Organizations like the ADL or NRA for anti-Semitism and gun control respectively do need to constantly be informing their readers about the latest things to happen. But out of respect for avoiding the Chinese Robber Fallacy, no one, not even SS, should be posting "here's 15 things about this topic in the last month", but instead talk about it at a much lower rate and build on a narrative with trend analysis and whatnot.
Basically, we don't need 10 top-level comments about something Disney might do. We need one that goes through each of those events with contextualization.
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
Ah yes, how could I forget to celebrate bad things happening to people who disagree with me? Truly, not a sign that every slight lives rent-free in my head.
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
Additionally activists tend to see these swaps as permanent and will demand black Aragorn in all future adaptations.
Sorry, where's the proof for that?
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
You know, this brings to mind Romeo + Juliet, a film that uses the exact same dialogue as Shakespeare's play, but changes the characters and setting to one that is familiar to Americans.
Would it be unreasonable for a British person to complain about this for the same reason? It's not inconceivable, the movie is partly a cultural and national swap in the same way Aragorn was race swapped - the original most certainly did not conceive of the character(s) this way. I say "partly" because they kept the same dialogue, and language is an important part of placing a culture.
And yet, I suspect most Americans don't mind this, perhaps because it was a swap in their favor, but probably because Shakespeare just isn't as big a culture war topic. Are the British upset about it? I doubt that as well, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't follow their media critics.
@problem_redditor says precisely what I suspect is the real belief of many here - that there is nothing illegitimate about X-swapping, only with the intentions behind it.
drmanhattan16
1mo ago
His post isn't a disagreement over "policy," it's a disagreement over the default position.
No, Hlynka is clear that elections are negotiations and that the winners have to convince the losers to cede power. He says as much here. I can't show him wrong under his standard because it's not about facts - if the convincing fails because the losers don't like losing, Hlynka wouldn't tell them to accept it.
Moreover, Hlynka was never clear if he was a principled election fraud investigator (in the sense that he only cares about ensuring valid elections) or if he's only being that way because he doesn't like that the Republicans/conservatives don't have their man in the White House.
Is your belief, one which is likely higher than this legal standard, one of "policy" or "facts"?
Facts, obviously, because my contention is that there isn't evidence of the election ultimately being stolen from Trump. I ultimately wouldn't have had a problem accepting a possible Trump victory in 2020 if that was the verdict at the time.
drmanhattan16
4mo ago
...is that sarcasm? I have to assume you are at least aware that Twitch isn't only for gaming, right? I know you said you don't watch it, but the idea that Twitch or even live-streaming in general is just about gaming is trivially demonstrated as false.
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
Presumably because there's no reason to let one's disgust with a pedophile inform as to whether they are actually trans.
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
Were they really? As far as I know, Romans didn't have the racial hangups Americans do, and in general most empires were quite tolerant to who they include. That's kinda the point of the empire - to assimilate as much of the other people and territory, and it's easier to do if you don't have weird hangups about skin colors.
The use of race or ethnicity as the basis for the higher or highest classes of society was far more explicit in previous empires, that's my point. Telling me that it makes no sense doesn't change that, because people are not always rational.
So, after I explicitly told you I am not trying to insult, you are saying "no, I know better than you, you actually are!".
I offered you charity, actually. I'll repeat myself.
"You are free, of course, to idiosyncratically define "barbarian" as those who don't belong to the culture of the US (insofar as such a thing exists)."
See, here's the thing. I don't think you're lying about not intending insult. I don't think you're trying to "as a black man" me when you say that you are a "Barbarian-American". I'm more than willing to grant your use of the term as you want.
But where I draw a line is in trying to claim that the only reason someone could object to the use of "barbarian" to describe immigrants (illegal if you want that qualifier) is that they are some kind of social progressive. That's precisely the point of invoking "clown world", one is explicitly appealing to a nihilistic viewpoint that is often socially conservative to say the least. The word "barbarian" is understood by non-progressives as an insult, and that should be obvious in the way that people use it. No one appreciates being told, to their face, that they are a barbarian. If you doubt this, go and talk to any of the non-progressive immigrants you are talking about and call them that, see what happens.
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
Setting it in Miami isn't the worst the movie could have done, and he did keep the plot, the characters, and the language.
Right, so why can't we say something like "Making the characters look like a sampling of New York City's elite isn't the worst thing, they still kept the plot, characterizations, and language" for LOTR?
It's for cheap novelty and attention.
Why can't it be the view that race is irrelevant to character? That a black Anne Boleyn is the same in a fundamental sense as a white one?
And before someone tells me that progressives are hypocrites because they don't tolerate the whitewashing of a character, recognize that they, like all people, are more than capable of compartmentalizing their beliefs. That they do this in no way suggests that they also don't actually believe it.
drmanhattan16
1mo ago
Hlynka and all the people supporting his QC confuse me.
It's confusing because it seems like there's a great deal of people who think the fact of the matter is that the 2020 election was unfairly stolen by Trump. They argue the facts and think their side is correct in a verifiable manner. I understand this perspective, even if I disagree on the facts.
Hlynka's post and subsequent comments aren't about this. It's about how election deniers have to be persuaded by the non-deniers that there was no ultimate theft. He interweaves this with references to attempts to suppress investigations into election fraud, but his subsequent comments in that thread make it clear that he assigns the election deniers no obligation to evaluate their own motivations.
If I talked with a person who disagrees on the facts, I know they would be willing to publicly state that the facts are the only thing that should determine the conclusion. Whether there was fraud or not, a stolen election or not, the facts are the sole method of determining this. But Hlynka isn't arguing the facts because his revealed preference is debates over policy. And no, elections are not the same thing as debates over policy.
I will ask anyone here who supports his view the same question I asked him - do you actually care about the facts of the 2020 election, or are you just interested in negotiating over policy? Because if it's the latter, just be honest and we can avoid debating a topic which doesn't actually touch upon your real concern.
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
There's also a possibility that some of the snow which hits my tongue was irradiated and I end up slowly consuming enough radioactive material to kill me. We don't take risk by itself as our sole factor. At the end of the day, I think the chances of someone maliciously using a voice recording from someone here is low enough that going on the podcast isn't an issue.
The issue with the bolded part is that that's not a defense. In particular, the ones they cite are Libs Of Tik Tok, Gavin McInnes, and Ron Desantis. You could maybe excuse Desantis, but you still have to grapple with the question of whether mainstream conservatism itself moved in the direction of Nazism in recent years, which is probably something IH's accusers don't have any issue believing. They might be wrong, but it's not a trivially dismissed point of evidence.
You're improperly summarizing the actual point that post made - The game being referenced where he put "14/88" in doesn't allow values for that field if they aren't divisible by 5. He had to choose that number.
This is a valid defense, but it's impossible to prove just from IH's actions where he actually stands on the topic, and so you can't tell he's saying these things to just mock the left or he's doing it because he's inserting what he actually thinks as jokes. It's not an unheard of strategy - Nick Fuentes has a clip of him saying that humor was a way to promote his brand of politics and that he couldn't obviously be forthcoming about what he actually believed.
I've watch IH's videos, including the ones mentioned in the post you linked. The Bike-lock professor one was straight up "4chan does good thing by catching attacker" and mocks neopronouns at the beginning of the video. Which part of this is mocking the lefties?
Ultimately, IH needs to cease his policy of silence and be forthcoming - both about the plagiarizing and where his actual politics stand. That's inherently the burden you take on when you aren't in the Overton Window. That applies to literally anything a person does.
More options
Context Copy link