philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
philosoraptor
1yr ago
can’t bring themselves to sudoku themselves
I love this typo. Don't you dare correct it.
philosoraptor
8d ago
America’s weak point is clearly potential civic disunity which could result in balkanization along racial, religious, or cultural lines. In order to hyper-defend from that risk, you implement a social operation involving defense-in-depth where the majority constituents must necessarily deny their own identity and engage in ritual ”sacrifices” upon the altar of plurality (from Trayvon to George Floyd). This explains even the whitification of Asians: once they become significant enough to possibly lead to Balkan problems, you enforce the same depotentiation. Notably, it is not enough of a social defense to merely pledge allegiance to plurality, as that hardly changes someone’s psychology. You must actually make it a social ideal so that it is promoted and normalized especially among the young potential rebels, and that is in fact what we see — those most at risk for any potential rebellion are coerced into a Kaczynskian “system’s neatest trick” procedure where their very rebellion helps to solidify state security.
This seems more likely to create problems of civic disunity than to serve as a defence against them, at least as currently implemented.
philosoraptor
7mo ago
said any of the times he went to visit France he was treated better when he spoke English than when he spoke French with a Quebecois accent.
The reverse is at least sometimes true as well. I've had a French-as-in-from-France friend-of-friends complain that when she visited Quebec, people kept telling her, obviously meaning it as an insult, that she didn't speak French.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Perhaps not the most insightful comment, but I was always like "Why did the name 'K-Pop' stick when 'Seoul Music' is right there?"
philosoraptor
1mo ago
I think we can set the bar a little higher than "not the absolute vilest possible (relevant) thing you could say".
philosoraptor
3mo ago
Also he needs to divest all but 100k in crypto and only keep that 100k so that if the guy does break in your friend has something to give him and his family doesn't get killed. I think the reason crypto is dumb doesn't really need an explanation beyond my comment being something anyone with a large amount of it needs to worry about.
Doesn't this argument prove way too much? Why doesn't it apply to money in any form? While I suppose crypto somewhat increases the available attack surface, it seems to me your argument applies to anyone known to be rich no matter where they have their wealth stashed, especially if they manage to make enemies with these kinds of resources.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
They certainly have Authority ("It's not my job to educate you" and the whole attitude of acting like there's already a huge consensus behind them that they can't believe you aren't aware of, what's wrong with you) and Sanctity (observe the frequent use of "Gross" as a term of moral criticism, often meaning nothing more than that someone disagreed with some prog shibboleth).
Loyalty is a weird one. There is an intense loyalty to the movement, and an expectation of same (e.g. exhorting people to be "good allies"), paired with a near-total lack thereof toward any of the individuals that make it up. I was particularly struck by this in their treatment of Germaine Greer. This attitude seems weird and almost incoherent to me - what is the movement besides a useful shorthand for the people who make it up? - but apparently they have no difficulty squaring that circle. Their whole shtick is reifying/anthropomorphizing abstract group identities in ways that seem weird and unhealthy to me, so I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was.
Okay, this got me curious so I tried it for the second period of tonight's hockey game, as viewed on a semi-local feed in Canada. For the most part only the people most prominently featured are mentioned.
- Grocery store - White family. Daughter (who looks about 13) firmly in charge, dad prominent but made to look kind of goofy (the mother is a bit of a space cadet too). Other ads in same campaign involve them interacting with the (white) president of the company.
- Building supplies - Everyone I noticed in the ad was white.
- Bank - In rough order of prominence, black guy I assume is a minor celebrity, black woman realtor, white family (only the wife is featured prominently).
- Pizza - Ethnically diverse group of friends watching a sporting event. There was a white male in there.
- Lottery (tied to one of the teams involved in the game) - White male celebrity (current captain of said team).
- Restaurant - Couple that appeared to be an east Asian but very Westernized male and a somewhat less integrated south Asian female.
- Quaker Oats (more their sponsorship of minor hockey than their products, though these get their spot) - No humans particularly prominent. Most people seen incidentally seem to be white.
- Grocery store (different from the first one) - No humans shown, only products.
- Sports team (one of the ones playing) - White male celebrity.
- Restaurant - No people prominently shown, only their food. (White hand briefly seen.)
- Apple iPhone - Black household that seem to be college roomies or something.
- Car - Centered around a white female/east Asian male couple, some similarly diverse friends are briefly seen.
There's actually less emphasis on diversity than I would naively have expected, though there's certainly more than there would be in, say, 1984.
Also, no ads particularly geared to farming and no ads for sports betting (though these get small spots outside actual commercial breaks, which I didn't count). These would have loomed large in a game shown on CBC, I'm sure.
EDIT: Much more notably underrepresented than whites were aboriginal Canadians and South Asians. When I look at my city, even in the expensive apartment complex where I mostly work, I see way more of these demographics than I do on television, even fairly woke television. I don't think I saw a clearly aboriginal face even though I'd expect there to be some among the construction workers seen in the second ad. Blacks are way overrepresented, no doubt partially due to spillover from the US. I'd say whites and East Asians are represented about right. "Hispanic" as its own distinctive group is barely a thing here.
There was one ad (not noted above) I'd characterize as very woke, but not in an obnoxious way. It consisted of a South Asian man talking about how Bell Canada's support had helped him move to Canada, learn English (and he was pretty well-spoken though he did retain a noticeable accent) as well as gaining technical skills, and build a new life here, over re-enactments of key moments in his early time here.
philosoraptor
5mo ago
If, in your experience, ordering dinner routinely turns into the kind of power play where these seem like the most salient questions, you have my condolences. All I can tell you is that I seriously doubt your experience is representative or, more importantly, in any way healthy.
With easily demonstrable skills or testable claims this is relatively rare. But with skills or claims that are hard to test I feel like this is relatively common.
If you've actually read the original Dunning-Kreuger paper, they make this point explicitly, using basketball as an example. The percentage of people who think they could go one-on-one with a top NBA player and end up looking like other than a complete fool is, I would imagine, statistically indistinguishable from zero. And those few exceptions probably really are mostly outliers in basketball ability relative to the general population, even if they aren't as good as they think they are.
Well the people on my socials most inclined to trumpet, and/or presuppose, the "born this way" narrative WRT LGBT+ people definitely don't apply that logic to pedos - think wood-chipper memes - regardless of whether that's consistent with other things they say.
Don't assume SocJus crusaders believe something just because you think it follows logically from other things they believe. They are, IME, almost all capable of compartmentalizing to an extent that makes my brain hurt.
philosoraptor
6mo ago
"Radical feminist" doesn't just mean "strong feminist", it refers to people like Firestone or for a relatively low-key example Greer who root their feminism precisely in biological differences between the sexes (and tend to find current trans ideology repulsive and/or incoherent as a result, thus the TERF abbreviation). It could not be further from the truth to say they are unwilling to consider biological differences. Though it would be nearly as far from the truth to suggest they're a significant part of the "woke" social movement you're deploring.
philosoraptor
7mo ago
most or second most populous
Second, behind Ontario, and it's not remotely close.
philosoraptor
11mo ago
You never say whether certain criteria are necessary, or sufficient, or both, or neither.
Yes, because that is the question that's at issue! The OP was, I thought, completely clear on this point, then in the direct reply to you she said this explicitly. You even say yourself:
You talk about whether X can be "the criterion" or Y can be "the criterion"
Well, yes. How is it not clear that this is the question she's raising, not one she has a worked out answer to? What else would someone you'd describe that way be trying to do? This honestly seems like basic reading comprehension to me.
I mean...are you a tall dude that looks like he could be a male model? Are you a multimillionaire with yacht pics? Famous? Or...are you okay with women twice your weight? If this guy ain't conventionally attractive he needs a million a year and enough charisma for a career in politics plus the body of a Greek God, otherwise he's decidin' where he wants the ambulances.
This took me less than two minutes to find and is just one example of you doing the exact thing you claim here that you're not doing, and going out of your way to be clear and explicit about it.
Also, I think much of the objection is not to the content but to the repetitiveness. Making a dozen to a score of posts saying essentially the same thing (including two substantively similar direct replies to the OP) in something on the order of 48 hours is pointless and obnoxious.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
You're missing the point. It's got absolutely nothing to do with wokism, and for that matter, by any non-US standard, precious little to do with leftism of any kind.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Only 1/50 parents actually objected to nudity being shown (the other two objected to not being informed)
You (and others) talk like these are entirely disjoint concerns, but how separate are they really? Why is informing the parents required in this case in a way it isn't with, say, multiplication tables? Maybe it's a failure of imagination, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible answer that isn't rooted in what some posters are calling "American prudishness".
philosoraptor
1yr ago
It's not a direct result of that law - it's not like the law required this firing, or anything like that. But do you really doubt that's a significant part of what set the context for this incident?
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Bit late, but:
I mostly see people monogamously pairing off. There's a small number of eternal singles, mostly men, but the norm is long(ish)-term serial monogamy. Getting a new partner generally involves the guy sticking his neck out to much greater extent than the girl but the gender balance isn't off by that much. Almost no-one in my social circles has multiple partners on the regular (even the theoretically poly people have mostly broken down into straightforward two-person relationships).
There's certainly nothing I'd be tempted to describe as "women... sharing a top man". Which for that matter, seems largely absent from your description of the state of play, as well; and this is especially true when you fill the ellipsis back in, because I certainly can't think of anything that could plausibly be described as an active preference for this on the part of women, even of the revealed variety. As has been pointed out before, ideas often assumed here, like that and the whole "alpha fucks, beta bucks" notion, IME exist primarily in the minds of incels and MRAs, and hardly at all in real life.
It's possible my crowd and I are older than the people you have in mind, but the pattern doesn't change that much when you go back to our teens and twenties. Far more frequent changes of partner, certainly, and more (but still not all that many) actively poly arrangements, but only one that I would be tempted to describe using anything close to the text I quoted.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
A significant portion of women seem to prefer sharing a top man over having a sub-par specimen for themselves.
Which women? Where? Based on what empirical evidence?
This seems to be one of those things - it has plenty of counterparts on the SocJus side of things - that's said because it follows from a theory someone is attached to, not because of any particular evidence that it's true. Outside of a very small number of poly arrangements, in which men at the top of the attractiveness scale aren't that overrepresented based on the ones I'm familiar with, I can't think of any cases where this is true. Yeah, it would logically follow if a lot of the ideas that float around the "manosphere" were true, but so much the worse for those ideas. But it's not something I actually see happening at any significant scale.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
This model only makes sense if every participant only makes exactly one claim, which has a binary truth value, ever.
Even then, in the general case there's no reason to assume the probability it's right is exactly 50% if not known definitively. That's at best a default position for cases where you have literally no background knowledge, but that's almost never the case.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Surely it makes a difference that "some dude" is a person in an official position whose job is, at least in part, to dispense accurate information about this. If anyone did anything wrong here it's them.
I guess the disagreement is largely about what kind of mens rea requirement should hold here. I don't see why voting illegally should be a strict liability thing like you apparently do, especially if the underlying goal is to prevent *intentional *voter fraud (though such votes should not be counted, if there's a way to enforce that without de-anonymizing them). Doing it with conscious intent, sure.
philosoraptor
1hr ago
the guide @No_one posted the other day on what men are actually attracted to (https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/).
Is that available anywhere in a non-stupid font? I probably wouldn't mind reading it but the typeface makes my eyes bleed.
philosoraptor
30d ago
The teacher in Batley is still in hiding, the groveling of the West Yorkshire mum is still on full display to see
These could use links or at least slightly more explanation.
Even granting your basic premise, how does your proposed remedy accomplish this? I mean... the suggestion is literally to punish more or less random third parties, who didn't do anything wrong other than believe bad information they were given. If anyone should be punished here surely it's the people who actually dispensed the misinformation. I fail to see how your proposed remedy does anything to disincentivize the behaviour it's supposedly aimed at, because it isn't even aimed at the right people. What I do see very clearly is that it's patently unjust, for the same reason. I mean... people shouldn't be punished for stuff other people did. It doesn't get more basic than that.
More options
Context Copy link