zeke5123a
7mo ago
They are so shackled by their blank slatism and fear of racism. Pro immigration in the year of our lord 2025 is the idea that genes and culture don’t matter.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
Seems to me the easy change is to cut social spending to immigrants. State in six months the spigot is turned off but will pay an additional six month lump sum + moving costs if they leave.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
Sure. But when videos are 30 seconds long, you could have one ad per ten videos and still end up with a decent ad return.
Also ads shown to customers are not the only important monetization stream.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
My prediction is that the second kind of grade inflation causes the first kind of a grade inflation.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
Yeah that’s my biggest problem. The field is inherently unserious. Yet many people “tut tut” about someone bringing in a non academic point of view when the entire field is non academic.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
Did you read the essay? It wasn’t good but your claim that she spent most of the time talking about non binaries instead of gender roles fails reading comprehension
zeke5123a
7mo ago
There was a communal aspect to it that I still miss—especially for comedies.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
People don’t stay on TikTok for only 30 seconds. My guess is they watch numerous videos. You could have some short ads.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
I think low level bullying is good. It helps enforce some degree of social standards. It helps people learn how to deal with difficult people. It makes people learn that they will survive.
I was bullied when I was a kid. I bullied kids when I was a kid. In both cases, it wasn’t a lot of bully (just general teasing and occasional light physical stuff).
zeke5123a
7mo ago
It would by psychology throwing stones. Gender theory is religious belief.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
The TA and professor also appear dimwitted. Just three dumb people arguing but one of them is attractive so…
zeke5123a
7mo ago
The moat is the network effects. If you want people to see your short form video, it’s on TikTok.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
Banks have to agree (generally for some inducement). You can’t just put all of your debt in a legal entity and spin it out thereby eliminating your debt. Banks aren’t stupid. Likewise you can’t strip assets out of the banking group without consent (again banks aren’t stupid).
The other poster is making a value judgement that the banks are making a bad deal. The banks don’t share the pessimism. We will see who is right.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
Isn’t it relative? I think you are making the case that an A is not what an A was 30 years ago. I’d agree.
My question for you is if only 10% of students could receive an A, do you think that A would more closely resemble what an A looked like 30 years compared to today or less?
zeke5123a
7mo ago
I’m not sure curving leads to grade inflation unless the curve is quite generous. In fact, I’d expect curving to be the opposite.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
False. You are making a clear logical error. Most of the posts aren’t saying “lower standards.” Indeed most don’t address what the standard ought to be. Instead, they are saying the current standard is being applied unevenly.
I think rightfully her paper should get an F (though she is hot so you know D-). But I think there are probably a lot of grades that should be Fs. If you only want high standards for views you don’t like, that isn’t rigor but an isolated demand for one.
zeke5123a
7mo ago
It isn’t AI that is the main threat but TikTok. How many hours of movies do people consume annually? How many hours of TikTok?
zeke5123a
7mo ago
You keep talking about what is considered a valid truth claim within psychology as if that’s meaningful.
First, fields can be wrong. Appealing to consensus is bad form.
Second, psychology is a bullshit field. Most of the famous theories don’t hold up to scrutiny. With respect to gender, most of the literature is just bullshit ipsie dixit. Besides many arguments not raving being empirical, the empirical studies are riddled with failure to replicate or publication bias. Even the NYT acknowledged that WPATH was hiding studies that cast doubt on trans agenda.
So the professor is literally casting stones from a glass house. But alas, I think the professor is probably too retarded to even know that. There was a massive logical error in literally every sentence the professor wrote. The university should fire her for being so stupid.
PS the paper sucked but probably sucked about the same as a number of other papers.
Doesn’t she mention the article assumes teasing creates gender roles but she thinks gender rules are created by God? Seems like she is addressing a specific point.
I suspect most people are mind body dualist.
More options
Context Copy link