eee
23hr ago
Why do you think it makes sense to say that the views of some random politician are emblematic of the "online racialist Right"? During the Biden administration, could I quote some random official and say that their position is the position of online radical leftists?
People accuse you of unfairly representing other groups opinions... because you don't understand their positions and represent them unfairly. And when people point out that you have done this you throw a big hissyfit. Then, you go right back to doing the same thing.
eee
2d ago
eee
2d ago
All you have done is clearly demonstrate that you have already made up your mind and no matter what hoops people jump through will not be sufficient. People have already provided numerous specific examples of his bad behaviour and first you lie and say that no one provided any examples and then you say only one of them was bad and the other guy was worse. Even if that were true that just means both people were behaving badly and not any excuse for his bad behaviour.
I am not about to spend my precious time digging up dozens of links to posts about some nobody on an internet forum of no importance. This is even more true when it is years old and said person is a chronically online obsessed loser that spends 12+ hours a day posting on reddit.
Even if I did you would not bother to engage with and would dismiss it all out of hand in exactly the same way you did to all of the other dozens of examples that people already provided you with.
If you care so much about his posting history why don't you spend dozens of hours going through it and come back and write a report on it? I frankly don't give a shit if you believe his presence was a net-negative for the forum (it obviously was). All you have done is make me update towards you also being a net-negative.
eee
4d ago
I would be interested in you actually substantiating that a very large percentage of Americans find the "social justice craze" to be a good thing. From what I remember of studies such as Hidden Tribes is that progressives make up like 5% of Americans which is an incredibly small amount. It is hard to get a very large percentage of Americans to agree on just about anything. Only 82% of Americans say that illegal aliens face discrimination! I don't see how you can think they don't when by definition they face de jure discrimination and there is so much obvious de facto discrimination as well.
I think to get very large percentages of Americans to agree on social justice you have to either water down "very large" from 70%+ down to like 30% or define "social justice craze" in such a broad manner as "yeah some things kinda suck for some people and thats a bad thing".
Though I do think that the grandparent is also at fault for not being more specific in what exactly he thinks the leaders he is thinking of should have opposed and how they should've gone about accomplishing that.
eee
4d ago
The article you linked goes over some of the things I was going to mention related to rice in Japan, but I still want to link this Asianometry video that covers the subject.
eee
4d ago
I'm not sure what your point is. Several of the posts in this chain are deleted so I'm going off vague memories here. Regardless, I don't see how interracial marriage or how exclusive is even a relevant factor. Even if it was, ultraracists are generally actually OK with minorities as long as they believe the right things. I don't see how this is any different from Hasidics trying to exclude anyone that does not share their views.
eee
4d ago
I'm not about to spend hours going through 5 year old comments of someone to find specific comments. That would be a gigantic waste of time for numerous reasons. The first is that this matter is so no real importance. The second is that you have already not accepted the testimony of numerous people recounting their personal experiences with him. Furthermore, several of them did provide receipts and here you are lying saying that no one has! Why exactly would I bother knowing that no matter what I post you aren't going to acknowledge it? Also when you make similar claims you do not bother to substantiate it yourself?
eee
8d ago
I haven't interacted with Darwin in a really long time, like since before the thread was exiled from /r/ssc.
He clearly was not ever arguing in good faith. Like people would be talking about how progressives use X as a Motte and Bailey eh would make bizarre claims of never seeing any real progressives trying to reap the Bailey and then when people ample evidence of progressives exploiting the Bailey he then picks one or two and tries to handwave all of the evidence away by dismissing those. Some standout examples were the time there was some argument about video game journalists and someone quoted someone that reviews video games for Arstechnica and he argued that that is some tiny site no one has heard of and it doesn't count because his byline said he was a "hardware reviewer" instead of a reviewer for games. Or the time he claimed to be really familiar with some controversy and then said that this one guy that had OP-eds in The Guardian and the NYTimes about it was a nobody and "a tutor from South Africa" according to some result on like page 5 of Google results. It was especially egregious because there were multiple tweets from him linked and his bio on twitter had his bonafides in it.
He also would also claim to have personal knowledge (or his spouse does which somehow counts as him knowing too) of literally any subject. The domains were always changing and for it to be true he would have been a true renaissance man with a very storied life instead of someone that spends 12 hours a day arguing on reddit. I'm surprised no one compiled a list of all of the jobs or things he claimed to have experience with, but I wasn't about to spend the time going through his comment history to do it.
Having people with different viewpoints is great, but it isn't enough. If they aren't here to honestly engage in discussion and are just here to troll they are negative value. Darwin demonstrated time and time again that he was not interested in engaging in good faith discussion. The mods bent over backwards and tied themselves in knots to justify his bad behaviour because they desperately wanted more progressive voices. All of the while pretending they would never do that but also writing essays about how it makes sense for the mods to look the other way when a minority voice in a space misbehaves all of the time. It was obnoxious and his behaviour and the defense of it is why I never bothered with the splinter community that kept him.
eee
9d ago
He does in this comment. I had not seen this as I don't normally read comments. Maybe he lives up to his namesake more than I thought.
eee
9d ago
There are also crops that depend exclusively or nearly exclusively on beekeepers to pollinate crops. Even vegans that do not eat honey probably eat some of them. Sometimes you can find people that avoid almonds and avocados but it seems to be very niche even among vegans, but I've never seen it extended to coffee or cocoa beans. Or really, any consideration of the suffering that goes into what they use/consume other than the most signalable like not eating meat.
eee
27d ago
My state just has (fairly new) laws that say that if you are going slower than the flow of traffic you have to be in the right-most lane and that if you are in the left lane and someone wants to overtake you that you must move over when it is safe to do so. Our signs are like "Slower traffic keep right". Other states have stricter laws.
Like here is a bit from Texas's handbook "Watch for signs on Texas multi-lane highways that read “Left Lane For Passing Only.” These signs let you know that the left lane on a divided highway is not a “fast” lane. It is a passing lane. After you pass someone, move back into the right lane once you’ve safely cleared the vehicle. Impeding the flow of traffic by continuing to drive in the left lane is punishable by a fine of up to $200."
That seems pretty clear about only using the left hand lane for actively passing someone and to move back immediately and not just you can use the left lane as long as you are going faster. If you are going 65 mph and there are 10 cars ahead of you spaced 10 car lengths apart it prescribes that you are in the right lane, then move to the left lane, pass the first car, move to the right lane, catch up to the next car, move to the left lane, pass the car, move to the right lane... in a bizarre game of leapfrog that is incredibly unsafe.
eee
27d ago
-
Should. You should be in the habit of doing it and it isn't like doing it has a downside.
-
Should. Though stopping at a timed red light and then proceeding when you know it is clear is fine in the middle of the night for example. Very little downside compared to a small chance of a very high downside.
-
No. Speed limits around here are 55-60 but driving less than 70 is actively dangerous due to other drivers.
-
This one genuinely confuses me and makes no sense. Interstates around here are normally 2 lanes wide, there is always traffic, and there are frequent cloverleafs with on ramps and offramps right next to each other. If people only utilized the left lane for passing traffic would be much worse because of less throughput on the roads and slowdowns due to contention merging on and off the interstate. If anything the opposite would be a better system (the right lane is only for merging on and off the interstate and passing).
Often I will be in the left lane going 70-75 and matching pace with the car ahead of me. Some moron comes up behind me and instantly tailgates me. I put on my turn signal and try to merge to let him pass, but there generally isn't room in the right hand lane to do so without cutting someone off. They get impatient and then either pass on the left using the shoulder or will change lanes in places were there are barely more than one car gaps and cut you off. They are now basically one more car length ahead of where they are before and stuck behind someone that is doing the same exact speed I was. Bravo, you endangered the lives of a dozen people to move a dozen feet. Basically my mental model of anyone that says this is "the left lane is only for me and I have no considerations at all for other people". They don't even agree with their own statement because they exclusively use the left lane. -
No and if you think this I seriously doubt your cognitive abilities.
-
Obviously not.
-
There is a large line on cars trying to get off at an offramp or merging. Instead of cooperating and getting in line behind them you defect, drive to the last possible merge point and force your way in because "zipper merges are more efficient". (I disagree personally, but if we could solve the coordination problem I would prefer zipper merges. Since we can't you are just being an asshole and negatively effecting everyone else for your own personal gain.)
Basically all of my thoughts are based on the fact that driving is especially dangerous and probably the most dangerous thing people regularly do. People don't give it anywhere the respect they should. It doesn't make any sense to drive aggressively and unsafely to save 30 seconds on your 15 minute+ commute.
eee
1mo ago
Destiny has been banned from twitch for a long time. No one knows why. Best guess is he called some people trying to cancel him that happened be trans "sub-human".
He streams on youtube and Kick.
eee
1mo ago
I recently watched a video of a guy making penicillin. Unless I'm really missing something I don't see how you could safely produce it at any sort of reasonable scale without countless advancements in in dozens of fields from glassmaking, chemistry, genetics, germ theory, etc. Even with the knowledge of the 1930s it took them two decades from discovery to use it effectively.
eee
2mo ago
I think your thesis is is worthless because it is both wrong and vapid. Any LARP that doesn't amount to anything? Well they just weren't determined enough to do it longer. It is completely unfalsifiable in the same way as a conspiracy theory normally is. And it doesn't matter how determined and for how long the cargo cults worship John Frum--the cargo is not coming back and it hasn't turned into something more.
Though I think if I take the essence of the idea it can still be applied in some cases. I'm thinking more of the transformations of the norms of communities though. Take for example both Something Awful's forums and 4chan (years ago). Both were places where being edgy and transgressive through things like being as offensive as possible was the norm as a form of counter-culture of contrarianism. Then on SA some people started being meta-contrarian (contrarian to the prevailing board culture), but were probably not being really sincere. Then other people that were not in on the joke followed along and eventually it turned into the neo-puritan society complete with witchhunts that was completely ideologically opposed to the site that the forum is based off of and the entire rest of the forums. Then this spread to /r/srs and snowballed further and further and now the modal progressive on Bluesky would be absolutely horrified that the origins of their ideology was incubated on a site that made fun of JeffK.
4chan had a similar culture and was initially made up of Something Awful diaspora. However, instead of the contraposition becoming the dominate culture the racism-as-shibboleth attracted enough honest racists that were not in on the joke. Eventually, it became enough of a problem that they were quarantined to /pol/, but this obviously did not contain them. And in a very similar way you can still see the echoes of this in various parts of the online right, but I don't think they are particularly ashamed of it.
Quoting her is a good source of her opinion on an issue. It would also probably be a good source for the view of the administration as a whole (though Trump seems to disagree with his own people a lot). How exactly is it a good source for the view of the vague mass of people that you are ascribing her view to? Politicians and party bureaucracy always have disagreements with their supporters.
This argument--that you didn't even make--that you can assume their view is in congruence because they aren't making a big fuss about it is completely nonsensical and completely unsubstantiated. Hell, it would be hard to provide evidence for it though a few op-eds, essays or tweets from credible sources would work somewhat. Even if you had that though, why would we think that everyone has heard this random interview on 60 minutes? If they disagree, would they care enough to voice their disagreement? It isn't like we are talking about Obama drone striking people or something that would cause actual outrage.
Since you are having so much trouble with this I will help you out and give you a recipe of how to make a good post:
More options
Context Copy link