fuckduck9000
1yr ago
He helpfully provided an example of how things are supposed to work:
During the first week of the 2014 iteration of the seminar, focused on slavery, a Chinese-American student pointed to a moment in our text where white slave owners were providing food for the enslaved and suggested this showed there were two sides to the issue of slavery. Before I formulated a way to turn his intervention into a stepping-stone toward more sophisticated discussion, two students spoke up with other evidence from the text suggesting that slavery is a moral abomination unworthy of “both sides” discussion. By the end of the seminar, the initial student, who seemed like he might have a wavering moral compass, expressed a newfound commitment to justice
Now was that a discussion, or was it badgering ? He didn‘t seem to be fond of the ‚both sides‘ method then.
I had extricated myself from the abusive relationship, but nine students remained captive. Belief in democracy had authorized abuse, and there was no way out.
He‘s an abused spouse by the end. There‘s that language of harm that seemingly came out of nowhere from the mouths of his students. Poor guy doesn‘t have the tools to explain what happened to him, let alone articulate why his students might be wrong. He seems pretty light skinned, and he‘s not even a woman or queer. He clearly was less on the side of blacks than Keisha was. Ergo, he is the oppressor in that relationship, and that's all she wrote.
Prosecuting Caesar always struck me as a bad idea. Perhaps an ideal, extremely robust democracy could get away with it. At present, I don't think the US is it.
Let’s assume he is guilty, and let’s also assume that 30-40% of the country doesn’t believe he is (apparently 85% of republicans don’t think he should be prosecuted). Shouldn’t a hypothetical, nationally representative jury, nullify the charges?
I too am annoyed by loose threats of terrorism, such as ‘if you don’t give young men sex/poor people money/if you police black people/etc, they will rise up’, but Carlson’s prediction of violence is justified here. If the ballot box and the jury box fail (edit: I forgot, perhaps the most egregious of all, also denied the soapbox when democrats cheered when he was kicked off twitter), what box do they have left? They are, ultimately, a large faction of armed men (like the democrats). Their power to inflict violence should be respected (and democracy, at heart, very much respects it). Their opponents do not have to accede to their every demand, but they should definitely refrain from putting their leader in prison. It constitutes a direct challenge to the war-making potential on which their political power rests, and as such invites the battle democracy is supposed to avoid.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
When you’re done figuring that one out, let us know where themotte would be today without the involvement of jewish men. Presumably there would be even more of these boring questions hinting at nefarious jewish influence, but how is that even possible.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I don’t think it indicates any kind of vawe breaking, this is intra-progressive infighting.
As such, disagreement is fundamentally to be resolved by who can cry the hardest. Or in more rational terms, about who can claim oppression status, women or ‘women’. Find out who gets to join the ranks of ordinary cis men as oppressors, cis women for oppressing the trans, or trans women for still being men?
The LGBA lawyer goes for the M&Ms argument that is the mark of a racist when applied to blacks. Mermaids counter with word games. The opponent’s riposte is to start crying, checkmate. I forgot which pigeon I was rooting for.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
So anyway, I was discussing the great replacement theory with a far-righter earlier, and I said that immigration had little to no effect on native birthrates, citing Japan and Korea as examples.
That pointed to a far more likely culprit, education as a whole (not just women’s). South Korea and Japan can’t seem to stop "investing in the future" by making their and their kids’ lives hell. Naturally, to escape the vicious cycle, they end up abolishing the future.
Isn’t it weird that a prominent justification for making money in our society is ‘sending my kids to college’? Anyone who refuses to do so is shamed with accusations of selfishness and not wanting their kids to succeed. They then choose the alternative path where kids aren’t even in the picture, so they’re free to be selfish in peace. We’re copenhagen ethics-ing humanity into slow painless extinction.
Trads like to assign the blame to female education, but most of the arguments apply to men as well. People are wasting 5-15 years of their lives on a very expensive vacation, at best, when they could be having kids. We want them to make that important decision early, and nothing sobers a young man quicker than staring decades of drudgery in the face.
It’s time to abandon our rosy view of Education as just an intolerable burden on the living. The unborn are its primary victims. Your children cry out: “Mum! Dad! Why do you let my Evil Professor keep me here? Why can’t I liiive? “
Say No To School. Choose Life.
fuckduck9000
9mo ago
Will climate change negatively affect crop yields? Has it already?
The wiki article on climate change seems to think so:
Climate change is affecting food security. It has caused reduction in global yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans between 1981 and 2010.
This links to IPCC 2019:
At the global scale, Iizumi et al. (2018) used a counterfactual analysis and found that climate change between 1981 and 2010 has decreased global mean yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans by 4.1, 1.8 and 4.5%, respectively, relative to preindustrial climate, even when CO2 fertilisation and agronomic adjustments are considered.
More on them later. But first, a little detour in the land of reality.
They obviously need all kinds of counterfactuals, because crop yields have greatly increased during that period. Plants generally love heat and CO2, and the earth is greening.
How then did lizumi et al get their results? Basically, they compared the simulations on a model on the yield of various crops under a no climate change (A) and with climate change (B) scenario, taking out the technological improvements. This would be fair enough (if you like models) , but the results show little to no difference (advantage B for rice and wheat, advantage A for maize and soybean).
So they added a third simulation out of nowhere, where they told the model to keep the CO2 to 1850 level (thus artificially lowering the yield the model predicts), but all the rest is like B (simulation C) . Then they averaged the bullshit C value with B and compared that to A, where A finally looked good.
Red mountain: The model‘s ‚unaided‘ answer B.
Blue mountain: random nonsense C.
Grey mountain: Unholy mixture they can now pass off to the IPCC as „considering CO2 fertilisation“ because hey, it‘s only half-garbage.
Because the amplitude of the observed CO2 fertilization varies with the field conditions and crop cultivars (Ainsworth et al., 2008; Hasegawa et al., 2013), the estimated impacts of the theoretical CO2 fertilization may be more optimistic than the actual outcome.
Or more pessimistic. Where‘s my all-else-equal 600 ppm simulation I can mix with B for a nice yield boost?
If you don‘t like the results of your model, don‘t mess with the „uncertain“ variables until it spits out the answer you’re looking for.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
There's a large difference between having a high body count and repeatedly telling your boyfriend about it. The former can sometimes be ignored (and contra redpillers claims, has nothing to do with sexual desirability. Wife-material-ibility, perhaps) , the latter is an emasculating power play (fine, shittest).
At the heart of my disagreement with redpillers on female promiscuity however, is that I cannot bring myself to condemn women for what I take for granted. Trads, okay, they’re against promiscuity generally, no hypocrisy there. But redpillers apply trad arguments only to people who aren’t them. Sex harms your soul or something, unless you’re a man, then I guess it’s okay to harm other people? Their locks and keys analogy isn’t doing it for me. You can get treasure from some terrible locks, and some locks are pristine simply because there isn’t any treasure behind.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
If you take a business course on cross-cultural differences, you might get a table that tells you how late your counterparts are supposed to show up to a meeting, from + 24 hours in morocco to - 10 minutes in germany. They will also tell you how uncommon the WEIRD individualism is, along with a number of peculiarities represented in that infographic, like no emotion, large personal space etc . So that's three, the woke, white supremacists, business travelers, all agree, so they might make a tiger.
But to be fair, people genuinely all love the barbie look, and the japanese at least thought our clocks were neat straight away. And ok, sometimes a chinese man works hard, respects authority, and ends up in a nuclear family, it's been known to happen in the wild without direct white oversight.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
I don’t agree with the way you splice up the debate types. You’ve got the old-school adversarial debate, in the interest of finding out the truth (so still cooperative on a deep level), which used to be at home in universities, and I guess we still have here, for example. Then you’ve got the adversarial politician’s debate, which looks and sometimes is similar, but with dirtier rhetorical tricks to appear right.
But the university presidents have little experience of those. They are used to more surface-level cooperative debates, where the goal is not the Truth but the reaching of a status-adjusted consensus. Free speech gets in the way of that consensus. Hostile questioning, from that perspective, is rude and a status challenge. The correct answer is not to answer but to air your disdain and let your higher status win the debate consensus for you.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
A lot of the late-80s early-90s Civil Rights Act feminism, for all I complain about its more recent excesses, was in response to employers forcing employees into (het) sex and other sexual behaviors in public.
Additionally, she testified that Taylor had touched her in public, exposed himself to her, and forcibly raped her multiple times. She argued such harassment created a '"hostile working environment'" and a form of unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That’s like saying a demented walmart manager chopping my arms off with a chainsaw constitutes discrimination and a hostile shopping environment. The intention behind this bizarre categorization is to paint the benign and mundane with the same brush as the criminal and abhorrent, requiring ever increasing state monitoring and control.
Additionally, this case ruled that the sexual conduct between Taylor and Vinson could not be deemed voluntary due to the hierarchical relationship between supervisor and subordinates in the workplace.
They should never have accepted that argument from a sex-neg rad-fem who refuses to distinguish between rape and intercourse.
Catharine A. MacKinnon, author of Towards a Feminist Theory of the State, was co-counsel for the respondent and wrote the respondent's brief.
”Perhaps the wrong of rape has proven so difficult to articulate because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is definable as distinct from intercourse, when for women it is difficult to distinguish them under conditions of male dominance.” in Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory (1982)
This is the real ‘cultural marxism’ conspiracy to destroy normal human interaction. A "feminist theory of the state"? They should be more subtle next time.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
I find it extremely grating because, especially if you're another women, you have to accept it as a timeout since continuing with a (fair) argument or complaint if the other woman is streaming crocodile tears is considered rude and unacceptable.
Why 'especially if you're another woman'? At least you can cry back as a woman. Women’s childish behaviour is socially sanctioned, they are empowered to switch at will between being considered a child or an adult. And if you point this out or talk like you did, as a man, then it’s sexism. For carrying the burden of being the only sane adult in the room, men are called 'emotional cripples' .
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
Stop switching between perspectives. The economic costs you highlight are borne by europe, while the ‘russia is no threat / it’s just some lines on a map’ narrative is only valid from beyond the atlantic. Ask the ukrainians, then the poles, if russia is no threat. That China might get strengthened because of OPEC etc, and therefore the US could lose the world top-dog competition, doesn’t even register as a concern. Europe’s needs are decidedly lower on maslow’s hierarchy. There's an existential security threat at the door.
The closer to Ukraine, the more immediate the threat, the greater the cost that can be borne. “We” think 700 billion is cheap. You worry about your own gas bill. The LNG substitution has worked out well for the US, so relax.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
You have a more naive view of social relationships than I do (or rafa : see ‘crocodile tears’) . It’s all about incentives. Boys are not rewarded for crying, so they learn not to cry. We’d be bawling our eyes out right now if there was status in it. It’s funny, even on the internet, in communities unlike this one, people will signal that they are upset to "win an argument".
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Jesus, just because you lose a few battles here and there doesn’t mean you hand over the keys to the castle. Let them come for all of history, it’ll be more honest.
I doubt your version of events, christianity in the beginning was hardly this unstoppable force, the priest probably threw in the winter solstice celebrations as a sweetener in the conversion of a pagan king. And I doubt he would have gotten anything had he lied down preemptively as you advise, if he was indeed threatened with more than hellfire.
When I see ‘deals’ like that, essentially bottomless blackmail, I hear a loud voice inside telling me the blackmailer should go fuck himself. I’m pretty sure for people in the past, or in an honor culture, it’s even louder. I have problems with those cultures, we are civilized, domesticated animals now, but this is handing the knife to your butcher .
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I wish to register a prediction that this is not going to alter our lives in any substantial negative way, or result in a singularity-type event. From the outside view, past predictions of doom and utopia have a terrible track record, and that’s good enough for me. I’m too lazy (or worse) for the inside view and stopping it is impossible anyway, so there you go. Prepare to lose to the most boring heuristic, eggheads.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Relax, it's also sexism if they don't want to. First time?
Women don’t have agency, as can be seen in the article itself. These women don’t make decisions, they are “plagued by midcareer derailing”, “have not been properly prepared”.
It's unmistakeable, Vlad has less hair, and it's almost completely grey, that's sloppy doublesmanship.... Another hypothesis would be that Vlad is merely an older incarnation of the entity previously known as Putin, which itself once appeared as Vova, a cute child full of life. Are you the same person you were yesterday?
Also, a double doesn't make sense. If Putin is alive, he can credibly threaten, as well as lead, his inner circle. A double can't, while still making negotiations with the west much more difficult.
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
No, Ted K.'s true problem with the technological society was that it made people leftist. Since this is immediately obvious when one actually reads the manifesto in even a cursory way
What? No. He thought the tech made people unhappy and destroyed the planet, and leftism to him is just an example of psychological suffering. "What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type".
fuckduck9000
3mo ago
Still, it’s a waste of goodwill. People used to want to serve for patriotic reasons. That was pure profit for the state. It was like a charity, they were fed and housed, but some of the work they did was effectively donated. As with billionaires, the state should find ways to encourage donations, not turn them away to make the diversity quota. You know, tell people what they can do for the country, not what the country can do for them, all that jazz.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
There's also a sex scene. With an alien. Judy (the lesbian) falls in love with one of the male aliens. He's such a good talker and such a good listener, you see.
An entirely political lesbian, then. I'm sure a good 'talk' would unlock her creativity.
Cheap shot I know, but the sheer womanness on display is so overwhelming, and since more cerebral criticism is likely to be seen as just as sexist, I find myself reverting to a primitive state.
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
There is no way this guy’s a progressive. What is he, writing a PhD on the identification of different flavours of stochastic terrorism? We get few progressives as it is, and it just so happens this one is more interested in far right content than we are.
Greer is interesting in that he presents himself as a race conscious conservative, putting him well outside the mainstream, but he never "calls out "Jewish power", which has alienated him among other far right online commentators.
Just add quotes around ‘jewish power’, and no one will notice the odd insider narration. Actually I'm pretty sure I read the above sentence, possibly about another guy, from another disposable account. To JQ or not to JQ, that is their question.
Inb4 OP deletes.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I think your dislike of political enemies is spilling into your assessment of geopolitics. I can’t see the last few year’s events as anything but a win for US hegemony. Russia’s prestige is at its lowest point since the fall of the USSR, and China, wih its turn to dogmatic authoritarianism exemplified by its zero covid policy, and looming real estate crisis, is losing influence and slowing down. From their tepid response to western sanctions towards their ally, it doesn’t look like they think they have a great deal of leverage in an economic war against the west.
Being self-sufficient, high oil prices shouldn’t concern you, they’re probably good for you relatively speaking, they hurt china and makes europe more dependent on you. Only russia could benefit, but they’ve helpfully decided to waste it all on some lost cause.
You’ve depleted munitions, but unless you were planning on the mother of all land battles against china for control over eurasia in the next five years, I don’t see how that should affect you. Medium term, you’ve gained greater capacity and more committed allies.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
The allies of convenience created by this controversy are farcical. DR guys defending the affirmative action hyper-woke presidents of Harvard and their commitment to free speech, now I’ve seen everything.
Calling for genocide is obviously “harassment”, in the same way that citing statistics is “harassment”. On a regular day, harvard students ‘feel unsafe’ when confronted with mild antagonism and unfamiliar ideas, and the administrators use this ‘harm’ to justify censoring offending speech. Now I’m not invested in this line of thought and I’m not that kind of guy, but it should be obvious to anyone that such a vulnerable person would feel even less safe by hearing calls for their genocide, than by hearing a random unorthodox talking point like abortion should be illegal. For harvard, it's a little late to try to catch the first amendment train.
The problem is not, that false accusations ‘devalue the words of real victims’. The problem is, women are a privileged social and legal category with the power to issue lettres de cachet that send men to purgatory or prison on their word alone. Feminists have pinned their favourite victims against equality before the law and public opinion, and the answer should be: female victims can get in line like every other victim.
More options
Context Copy link