culture war roundup
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
See my other comment for why gas and conventional electric are bad.
Frankly, no supposed harm of stoves is likely to convince me that adults shouldn't be able to choose what they do or don't want to cook with.
What about the children who live in the same household? Indeed, children are the ones most affected by pollution from gas stoves.
If it's not clear, I was actually mostly joking when I suggested banning gas and conventional electric stoves. Did anyone take my claim that using conventional electric stoves is "basically a human rights violation" seriously? I was slightly in favour but I didn't really care. A complete ban is well beyond the Overton window anyway. I have now changed my mind and am slightly against it unless it can be demonstrated that they are 100% safe for people with pacemakers (and metal fragments!). Presumably this question will come up if a ban becomes remotely plausible. If it is a real danger, politicians will want to avoid being responsible for cooking someone's grandpa.
guesswho
1mo ago
eah, because watching video of people I hold in contempt is not something I'm going to subject myself to.
Right, and since you hold those who disagree with you on this in contempt, you'll never learn whether your beliefs are accurate or not.
That's why I stopped bothering top provide links on this topic, no one ever used them. Everyone knows how to use google if they care to learn.
If this is blood libel, then jews really do drink the blood of Christians.
This is actually a pretty stunning example of taking a quote out of context to lie about it. I reference two specific types of statements she's made in one sentence, and discuss their import in the next sentence. You take the second sentence and pretend it was referring to a completely different statement, then spend a paragraph stridently mocking how dumb it would be as a discussion of that different statement.
I'm going to be charitable and assume that you couldn't bear to read my whole post carefully because o the contempt thing and just got honestly confused, rather than concluding that this is intentional slander. But it sure doesn't make me hopeful about the EV of this conversation going forward.
Eradicate? No, fix. But you're right that in an ideal world, the number of trans people is 0.
Etw0
1yr ago
There are definitely low-effort sneers and very silly comments full of uncharitable takes and extreme nonsense. I try to ignore those, but sometimes they do suck me in and I end up arguing for 3 hours over whether 6,000,000 +- 1,500,000 people dying in gas chambers and hard labor camps is still a genocide. It is.
This is what lends the critique of The Motte it's validity, I don't really enter the culture war roundup thread here, just check what the self posts have to say, because whenever I enter the culture war thread I get bogged down by someone who ardently holds a very controversial opinion, and lacks the eloquence or intelligence to properly defend that argument.
The smartest red tribe enclave on the internet still has a reason to exist, as someone on reddit said: "I would still go there just to see what the intelligent right-wing position on this issue is." The current Motte fails to live up to that standard.
guesswho
1mo ago
Could you give some specific examples of people with extreme transphobic views who've been supported or signal-boosted by Rowling?
Here you go, to get started.
The novel never suggests that the serial killer is trans, or even a transvestite.
As I said, and you quoted:
She wrote a whole book about a serial killer pretending to be trans
Sometimes I think people just pattern-match me to a strawman of their opponents that their media bubble has crafted for them and don't bother to carefully read my actual words.
The narrative of 'people claiming to be trans are just perverts presenting as women in order to prey on women by getting them to let their guard down' is very much a major blood libel against trans women in general, and it's exactly the situation you describe as appearing in the novel.
This sounds like you're worried you won't find what you're looking for.
The person I was talking to already said they refuse to watch those videos to learn what the other side has to say. I'm not the one avoiding the other side's position here (notice where I am right now). I'm just the one whose sick and tired of taking the time to provide links that people will disdainfully and ostentatiously ignore.
BTW, thrilled to see whether you and the other people who reply to this will actually watch that video I linked earlier in this comment, or will offer some excuse not to.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
8mo ago
I argued this after the Martha’s Vineyard stunt, but it really doesn’t have to be hypocrisy.
So New York probably isn't far off from its proportional share, it's not being obviously exclusive, and it clearly has handled previous migrants well enough that residents aren’t upset.
If they’re already at equilibrium, but Abbott or DeSantis decides to put his thumb on the scales, why shouldn’t they be annoyed? The outgroup is benefiting at their expense; it doesn’t matter how much!
It’s the difference between choosing to paint your house and being compelled to do so by your neighbors.
carpathianflorist
162 IQ social equity activist (she/them)
11mo ago
Good evening! I checked the rules of the Culture War Roundup before posting this and I think you are in violation of this one:
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
It also seems very “Boo Outgroup!”y, while we’re on the subject. And while it’s generally agreed that Holocaust revisionists are a safe and acceptable outgroup to boo and sneer at, I don’t believe that makes it any better; rather, it’s just boring at best, and outright insidious at worst. Holocaust revisionists today, Nazis are bad, yes, but what about the theoretical outgroup that supplants them as a safe and acceptable outgroup? Or their followup? The one after?
To wit, this comment thread itself just smacks of intellectual laziness and, if you will pardon a bit of parlance from our digital homeland, circlejerking. Do Holocaust revisionists even need lampooning, however flowery the wording of that lampooning? Is there really anyone noteworthy in the Holocaust revision camp?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
What kinds of pans? What's wrong with ferromagnetic pans?
See my other comment for why gas and conventional electric are bad.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
Can anybody who voted explain to me how the winner entry is superior to mine?
From what I can see this is what it said about intuition:
-
Grady Little may have made a decision based on intuition, Joe Maddon didn't
-
To improve intuition one must train
-
LBJ was intuitive, Obama wasn't
That's basically it.
This is what it didn't say:
-
What is intuition
-
What is the opposite of intuition
-
When is intuition helpful
-
When is intuition unhelpful
-
How complex intuition is
-
What intuition is comprised of
My essay at least attempted to answer these.
To me this is clear evidence of bias in this community.
And because Mottizens are very prone to commit converse error fallacies, I shall point out that this is not something specific to my essay, I also don't see how the winner is superior to this entry: Intuition in a Scientific Age, which also does attempt to answer some of the important questions, such was: what is intuition? I also would be interested in hearing why somebody who voted for the winner considered it superior to that one.
This is a laughable assertion.
No it is not.
Near as I can tell, the sort of view expressed by @Folamh3, @self_made_human, and others here that...
...is not an extreme or hyperbolic take, it's the median.
Charitably you are engaging in a very blatant Motte and Baily where you try to play the "group differences in outcome" card right up until someone asks how exactly you determine group membership for the purposes of determining group differences. IE Is a dark-skinned man who votes Republican "black" or is he, as Joe Biden and the Hosts of the View assert, "white". (Edit: See Slate and the LA Times' treatment of Clarence Thomas and Larry Elder)
Less charitably you are simply lying.
I hadn't realized you were literally a member of the party's terrorist wing.
That explains why I smelled sadistic glee in bragging about getting away with it in all your posts about the 2020 violence and election.
I follow your buddies in "Redneck Revolt" and all the affiliated groups. They're open about what their goals are, and so it's easy to see what you're up to.
Tell us about your activities with them.
Edit: engaging with people we disagree with is a good use of time. But leftists aren't people: burn in hell.
HlynkaCG
old man yelling at clouds
1yr ago
Ordinarily I'd just report you for being a low-effort/single-issue troll * and move on but seeing as I don't expect the mods to actually do about this I'm going to go against my own advice and feed the troll, because like @FCfromSSC I find that preferable to ceding this space to the enemy with out a fight.
So, to answer your question, two things spring immediately to mind.
First is the issue @Evinceo raises, if things like intelligence and personal discipline are primarily genetic why are the children of our elites so consistently idiots and drug addicts. This isn't a recent development either Strong man builds a grand empire, or sucessful empire only for his kids to piss it all away has been recurring theme throughout human history.
Second, the axis would have won WWII. The Japanese and German militaries both entered the war with a substantial advantage in technology and training over their opponents. If the HBD-Tards' and Woke-Cels' theories about race were accurate, this ought to have translated into quick and easy victory. Instead the racially diverse, hopelessly disorganized (IE decentralized), and utterly lacking in warrior spirit/tradition armies of the Aglosphere proved far more capable of cooperation, innovation, and stacking enemy dead like corde-wood than their ostensibly superior and racially homogenous opponents. As much as Weebs fetishize the IJNS Yamato but the historical truth is that the one time she actually fought enemy surface ships for real, she and her accompanying task force got thrashed by a by a squadron of 4 escort ships that collectively weighed less than Yamato's main armament. That sort of thing doesn't happen in a sane world run by math and autistic notions of genetic destiny.
* 2/3rds of BorfRebus' total posts have been abpout race/hbd
the people who pull the strings in the federal government seem to be okay with defacto open borders.
Easy: the US does not have de facto open borders. "De facto open borders" is a mood expression of nativists who don't like current state of immigration enforcement. If we actually had de facto open borders, immigration would be unfathomably higher.
The people who "pull the strings" are wedged because there's no magic solutions to the material factors driving Latino migration. Nobody wants to spend the exorbitant sums it would require to actually physically secure the southern border. Nobody is willing to countenance just shooting them. Unfucking Latin America to the point where you don't have tens of millions of people who'd rather be an illegal or quasi-legal day laborer in a country where half the people hate them than stay where they are is a nontrivial exercise, and there isn't much support for that either (try and sell the guy who wants to deport all the Mexicans on spending trillions of dollars failing to develop Latin America). On top of that, the US is like most developed countries in that it has an aging native population that demands increasingly high standards of post-retirement living at the same time the retiree-worker ratio is getting worse, so it also just needs immigrant labor.
New York and other cities are howling about migrants being bussed into their communities, but so far seem reluctant to change their sanctuary city policies.
NY and other blue states already absorb the majority of immigrants, including illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. The central objection remains that the migrant bussing project is done in a maximally disruptive and uncooperative way.
My ability to earn a paycheck is affected by PMC white liberals in a way that it isn't by white nationalists.
This is a very strong counterpoint, and I definitely understand that my point here is not going to be very compelling to the stereotypical Motte user working at a Bay Area Tech company where they are only exposed to the excesses on the left.
Just beware of the free speech example here. I'm going to make an assumption that you haven't lived in parts of the country where the bias goes the other way and dealt with their orthogonal set of excesses that are even worse (though I would be very interested if that assumption is wrong).
As a meritocratic individualist, I completely disagree. The anti-meritocratic hereditarians here might hate mi abuela, but they still treat me with respect and state their points clearly. Dealing with DSA-types has been an exercise in frustration - try to argue with them fairly and they posture, form social alliances using whisper networks, make emotional appeals, play status games, etc.
I'm very surprised by this. I've spent significant time in some of the most infamous universities in the country and I've had a very, very different experience. As long as you can play an elaborate game of taboo---never explicitly saying words like "meritocracy" and instead directly appealing to the core values of MLK-style egalitarianism, I've found those on the left extremely pleasant and rational. I can very easily argue about how standardized tests are good, Harvard's affirmative action policy was bad, Claudine Gay was incompetent, etc. It very much felt like talking with people who had all the right values but were just very confused on some correctable factual points.
Conversely, trying to discuss anything with right, for example on this forum, generally means dealing with many unjustified personal attacks from people very explicitly not on board with individualism and meritocracy. Discussing with the right is useful to do to keep my perspective broad enough, but it is far, far more unpleasant.
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
You're talking about how all these silly paranoid privacy people have concerns that could never be realistic, and all the while we can just go look at one of the largest nations on Earth and see what happens when you get your way.
I did not say lets also become an authoritarian dictatorship at the same time. I am specifically criticizing privacy warriors in the US.
See also the bottom of this other comment: https://www.themotte.org/post/851/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/183628?context=8#context
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
I responded to this third party doctrine concern you raised on a different comment here: https://www.themotte.org/post/851/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/183485?context=8#context
But to recap
If Facebook has your messages, and you haven't encrypted them E2E, the government can look at them any time they want without a warrant.
This isn't exactly true. Things that neatly fall into the category of "communication" are protected, like 1:1 messages. Metadata and other content (like documents) are not.
You're also ignoring that for the government to look in your basement takes some effort. Looking at millions of people's data is trivial.
A different commenter also raised this. Addressed here: https://www.themotte.org/post/851/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/183482?context=8#context
Wholesale surveillance has been criticized as fairly useless to law enforcement by security experts for a long time.
I notice that there are still no convictions!
Edit: whoops—a guilty plea does count. I was wrong, then.
I also notice that you’re determined to work in Ron “JEW” DeSantis’s JEWISH hate speech law signed JEWISHLY in JEWrusalem. You’re very persistent. I will stand by what I said before: that bill is a sensible modification of existing law. Hanging out on a campus was already a crime; this breaks out intimidation as a specific motivation with different charges and reporting requirements. As @Gdanning pointed out, there’s a firm constitutional basis for that regardless of Charlottesville.
Chrisprattalpharaptor
Ave Imperaptor
1yr ago
Accordingly I sympathize with @naraburns for not wanting to cross that bridge either, and there does come a point where calling a spade a spade is the most charitable course.
Ah, we're doing the call a spade a spade thing? Will you defend me saying this forum is populated by 'yes-men tripping over themselves to fellate [FC]?' And will you defend my right to call out people for being racist, fascist misogynists in the future, if these are the rules you want to live by?
My first comment in your collection added to the total list of types of denialism.
The second one was asking how many people had been reported.
Can't find the third one.
Value is in the eye of the beholder. If you dislike my opinions, jokes, and questions I am open to hearing why but they weren't intended as shit posts, neither were they intended to be effort posts. Just obscure comments to a comment of a comment to a roundup of random threads.
It seems to me like you have for some reason developed a grudge.
For the most part my exchanges have been civil and mutually beneficial with the exception of the mods.
I have tried to be more careful about comments that fit into the definition of culture war in threads that forbid it, even foregoing a comment altogether if I am uncertain...
As for you first allegation of "shitposting," that was made in a thread that allowed culture war posts and it was merely an addition to a list in the previous comment.
Is it overly snarky? Probably.
But it's general ungrounded snark.not directed at anyone specifically in the conversation.
TLDR: What actual rule did I break? I'll wait.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
5d ago
You guys are allowed to mod however you want---it's your website. It's just dishonest to pretend to be a neutral "place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases" when there's a pretty clear bias in which groups you're allowed to use this kind of antagonistic language against and which you aren't.
Whatever you guys might claim to be, this seems to be a place where it's ok to call an immigrant group an infestation but not to say that the antebellum south was an execrable culture.
DuplexFields
Ask me how the FairTax proposal works. All four Political Compass quadrants should love it.
1yr ago
· Edited 1yr ago
And there it is. The deaths of people who have been injected with the vaccine, but who are not yet immunized to Covid, have a huge death rate.
Calling people within that fourteen day window “unvaccinated” is blatantly disingenuous. Playing with words for political reasons is dangerous. Sticking with the moneyed narrative in a time of total narrative collapse can be deadly.
Those of us who were paying attention to the biology of the effects of SARS-CoV-2 were screaming to high heaven that vaccinating humans to replicate the spike protein was a Bad Fucking Idea. But since we were red-tribe coded, our words fell on stone-deaf ears.
How can we do better as a civilization next time (assuming for the sake of discussion Global Pandemic II won’t be deliberate)?
EDIT: Spike protein mechanism for causing myocarditis detailed in my reply here, for those who think I’m just being a reactionary.
ControlsFreak
1yr ago
Listen man, see Entelecheia's comment. Then go back to rippin' your bong all you want.
First of all, most of that is very niche online-only stuff that most people haven't heard of. It's not on the same level as the fight over gay marriage and everything that went along with it.
Second of all, half of those are about trans stuff, which proves my point? Trans people are forced into counter-culture, and the trans culture war brings all kinds of weirdness to the front of the Overton Window, including stuff about drag queens who aren't even trans. That's what you can take out of the Overton Window by just not fighitng about trans people anymore.
And for that matter, the first two which are largely about gay people also prove my point? Gay people who are normie and straight-passing become nationally important politicians, gay events like Pride become family-friendly and wholesome, and the people who have a problem with that are relegated to writing think pieces in dying old-media outlets.
Third, see the second half of my reply here, I was talking about the immediate decade-or-so aftermath of the gay marriage fight ending. Yes there will eventually be new fights, you can't win everything forever, but that's doesn't negate the huge wins you actually got at the time.
More options
Context Copy link