ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Mostly justified, quite frankly, unless they pick civilian non-elite target.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
They didn’t stop approaching because they were scared of being arrested for harassment
Who said anything about being arrested?
Your explanation for why apps are lower-fear is exactly why they'd be a shield against metoo.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
7d ago
There is such a thing as being afraid of something you can't predict - imagine being trapped with a bear or a member of one of those uncontacted tribes that sometimes shoot outsiders on sight
Why should I imagine them, and not a member of the society I live in, but one that has a very different worldview? Do you think I have no taboos? The one against surrogacy alone is on the same level as these people have against "racism". It's the fact that you this is considered an apt analogy, while arguing in their defense that gives a massive WTF quality.
I took his claim to mean that the Haitian immigrants coming to Springfield would lower the crime rate in Springfield. My enture point is it uses national rates, and cannot be used when debating local crime, so I don't see how his claim can be valid.
And seriously, how do you read this:
I mean, one should be able to look at the crime rate of Springfield, Ohio over the next few years and see if things shift that much. Of course, history shows that at least w/ the first generation of immigrants, crime is likely to go down.
As "across the US"??
Overall, I don't know if we have enough data to do a proper apples-to-apples comparison.
Well, to make it slightly more apples-to-apples, since the your link provides the incarceration rate, I did a quick search for Clark Country. Funnily enough, like you said, it's not the safest place, and it's actually one of those that drags the national average up. Still, comparing it to your link, it seems roughly on the same level as "all immigrants". If you take South and Central America, it's not even close, sending in more people from that region would increase the incarceration rate even more.
Looking at those charts, I have the feeling they're being misused. It seems they were set up to say something like " America's racist society is turning otherwise law-abiding people into criminals", but through some game of telephone people started retelling it as "immigrants are literally less criminal than average Americans", which is completely wrong.
I don't see how this invalidates the statistic.
What do you mean? He literally said "Of course, history shows that at least w/ the first generation of immigrants, crime is likely to go down". How do you parse that data to come to that conclusion? Even if we go with "there's no data for a good apples-to-apples comparison, he's the one that's wrong for making the claim!
Am I missing something here?
Edit: There's something very weird going on in that source. Apparently the average incarceration rate in the US is 531 per 100K, I don't know how you get these numbers to work together with the study you linked. Do they per 100K of the prison population??
Maybe it's because of the age? My link gives the rate for 15-64s, while yours for 18-40's. God, I hate academia.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
Ok, but that still leaves them with the ability to believe abortion is sacrificing your child to Baal, without cognitive dissonance.
Or, and hear me out here, abortion is not the major break between the dissident and the mainstream right, that would be foreign policy.
The dissident right has plenty of hardcore Catholics, who are happy to call abortion "sacrifices to Baal" with no cognitive dissonance.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
that the academic priesthood of the SJ establishment has appropriated Marxist vocabulary as well as a fair amount of concepts
I agree with the "appropriation" framing of it, but one thing I'd like to emphasize, is that this idea didn't spring, fully formed, from the finest minds of Tumblr, the work started around the 60's, as OliveTapendale pointed out.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
The term certainly appears starting from the 60s, though, it must be said, not incredibly prominently.
I recall reading something by Walter Benjamin from just before the war, but back then it boiled down to "Marxists talking about culture".
Cultural Marxism" in the sense of 2010s-and-20s culture wars just doesn't seem like something that has much to do with a handful of 1960s academics.
Why not? What they were saying back then was eerily similar to what would define modern culture wars. I'm half-willing to make a bet that if you trace the influences of people like Ibrahim X. Kendi or Robin Di Angelo you'll run right into those 60's academics.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
High crime parts of the US drag the average up, and while it's technically true immigrants have a lower-than-average crime rate, that's small consolation for communities that aren't in that dragging-the-average-upwards cluster.
and source?
Tell you what, how about you grab the stat that the claim is made on, and I look up the crime stats of Springfield, and we'll see how it would affect them.
No. It's not. I'm a Marxist. If it were real I would have heard of it.
I don't see why I should assume this is true.
This leads to at least one of two conclusions:
- I am in on the conspiracy. And I am lying to you.
- Somehow, you and a bunch of other online fascist adjacent types understand Marxism better than me.
Well, why don't we argue over the facts of whether or not Cultural Marxism is a myth, and then you can tell me which one of those was correct.
You mean academic singular.
Off the top of my head I can think of Richard R. Weiner, Douglas Kellner, and Emily Hicks, so plural. I remember there were more, but I'd have to start searching.
Eventually someone just went to google scholar and found a book with the title Cultural Marxism from the 80s or 90s from some literal who.
a) I think the term goes back to WWII or thereabouts, and there's been several books written about it.
b) "Myth" means it didn't happen, not that it was neiche.
The other works the conspiracists like to cite never call themselves "cultural marxist" e.g. the Frankfurt School.
The students of the core Frankfurt School thinkers were calling themselves cultural marxist, so this is flatly wrong, unless you want to say that people who studied directly under them don't get to call themselves "Frankfurt School".
Again we are talking about a supposed movement that's brought much of the developed world to its knees. Despite the fact economic leftism as a movement is laughably dead and pathetic now. Not some micro book from around the collapse of the USSR.
Yes. It brought it to it's knees culturally not economically. This is why the "Cultural" part of "Cultural Marxism" is so important, and the deadness of economic leftism is irrelevant.
If wokeness had much to do with serious Marxism maybe I would be Woke. I'm not. I'm opposed to it.
I don't get why Marxists get so defensive on this. I agree that OG economic Marxism is not responsible for any of this nonsense.
I was already severely backing off from strategic protest hearing that J.D. Vance endorsed some insane Red Scare book that promotes the "Cultural Marxism" myth
I hate to break it to you, but the idea that Cultural Marxism is a myth, is a myth. There literally were academics calling themselves Cultural Marxists, and they were promoting exactly the kind of thought that would later become SJWism, and now Wokeness.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
Not always. When the target is a group disliked by the establishment, we call it "Poe's Law" and we laugh at how those people made satire indistinguishable from reality. It's only when the establishment itself becomes the target of an absurd rumor, that believing it reflects on the believer. When the rumor turns out to be true (like it did in this very case), that doesn't matter at all. You're still a backwards ignorant hick for thinking it could be true, before it was proven to be true.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
Of course, history shows that at least w/ the first generation of immigrants, crime is likely to go down.
Why do progressives repeat this when the exact statistical mechanics of this have been known for years? No, history does not show that at all.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
@Southkraut, how's your Unreal project coming along?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
The fact that these laws and programs were abandoned after a few decades had nothing to do with their efficacy and everything to do with what I would consider small-minded moral squeamishness.
It's not squeamishness, some of us would just like to be something more than livestock, bred by the elites to whatever twisted goals pop into their heads.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
HighSpace
Goals for last week were:
- Fix bugs introduced in this week
- Something weird happens when a friendly ship gets shot down causing a crash.
- Shooting down a ship does not remove it from the list of active AIs (which is why the debug aggro information is still shown after the mission, in the video above).
Fixed, and fixed. The second one was trivial, the turned out to be a faulty team-membership check resulting the AIs increasing aggro of the just destroyed friendly ship. Since the ship is completely removed from the game state, when the AIs try to chase it, they run into a null pointer, and the game crashes.
- Reinforcement mechanics
I run into a few bugs trying to set it up, so I didn't get as far as I wanted, but I made decent progress! On an unrelated note I'm considering uploading the gameplay clips somewhere, because the file size limits on The Motte are too strict to upload anythig longer, so the end result is that it's hard tell what's going on. So to recap, from previous week we had these:
- Player fleet approaching the enemy. There's a constant aggro factor of 50, while the final level increases as the ship approaches. When the fleet splits, the split-off Alpha wing inherits the aggro, and is detected as the ship AI should target, as it's the closest.
- After the battle. Upon successfully destroying the enemy cruiser, Alpha wing's constant aggro factor gets increased to 60.
We take a similar setup, when the player's capital ship is parked outside, and the fighter wing heads out to meet the enemy. Because the cap-ship is within range (currently set to something ridiculous like 1 AU) it's visible in the in-mission "reinforcements" menu. From there it can be called in to join the battle. The most basic functionality works! It's not finished though. The ship is not removed from the menu after joining the battle. There's no consideration of the ship's distance from the battlefield, so it's available instantly, and it's not added to the in-mission game state, so you can't select it from the tactical view and give it commands. There's going to be a bunch of things I haven't considered, like making some moves illegal.
I did not manage to get to these at all :
- See if there's any low-hanging fruit to make the AI more interesting.
- More annotations / code refactoring
This week:
I have absolutely no chance to get anything done this week. This might turn out to be a busy month, but I hope I can get some work in every other week. If I manage to find some time, currently the next goal is to finish the reinforcement mechanics.
I'm not sure exactly why people on right in the USA are till on the "thin blue line" team.
Maybe it's "the last time we had a broad anti-cop sentiment sweep the country, it resulted in riots, and a skyrocketing crime rate"? Perhaps the fact that said last time was a mere 4 years ago also played a role?
Either way, I think theyre in for a rude awakening in the coming years.
I actually agree with you, though the American system is more democratic and decentralized, so they might stave off the kind of stuff that Europe is imposing on it's population.
Also, do you actually expect some negative consequences for people other than members of the police from such a policy (which ones?), or is your presumable opposition just based on its consequences for police themselves?
Sorry, I missed this originally. I expect both, or rather one leading to the other. Once it becomes established that cops can get into trouble for overstepping their "no better than a civilian" line, they'll just avoid hazards and do the bare minimum required to do their job. Once that becomes apparent, the criminals will start becoming more bold, and if you defend yourself against them the cops will go after you, because you're the easier target.
just think that policing is in the class of necessary occupations engaging in which invariably induces moral corruption and decay
I don't disagree, but I think they need rights beyond those of a civilian to be able to do their job.
and whose practitioners therefore should be shunned and restricted in their rights vis-a-vis regular people, rather like medieval executioners or burakumi
Like I said: cool idea, as long as you try it out away from me, and are forced to live with it's consequences.
From my libertarian days I remember some amount of police brutality stories involving white women, so I wouldn't bet on it if I was you.
But even if you're right, I'm not sure this is wrong.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
I've been in Europe for the past three years or so, where US-style police brutality is not really an issue
I've been in Europe my entire life, and it not being an issue has nothing to do with limiting the police to civilian self-defense rights.
Do I get to have the rule follow me to whatever small jurisdiction I move to instead?
Absolutely not, the rule is meant to limit the damage your ideas would do, and this would let you spread it throughout the world.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
Sounds like a great idea, with a few caveats:
- This is limited to a small jurisdiction
- Specifically, the one where you live
- You don't get to move out
A part of me can't believe we're redoing the whole police brutality debate, before the dust really settled after the last one.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
I'm not sure what he meant by killing fire with oxygen, but the rest seems pretty clear. He thinks litigating the "truthiness" if controversial claims is good. Floyd's drug habits are given as an example of an inflammatory claim that could be neither confirmed or denied at the time, but we eventually learned the truth of.
Actually, I'll take a stab at interpretation. Perhaps what he meant was that the controversy itself was essential to us finding the correct information? If you "killed the fire" we'd never know the truth, but it was kept alive with "oxygen"/controversy, and so we eventually did, because people were invested in winning old internet spats.
Yeah, but "fear of being reported" does not boil down to being reported to the police. When MeToo was at it's peak, we've had progressives unrinonically argue that no one should ever hit on a woman at work, to the utter shock and horror of our local Europeans, for whom it's it would imply lowering the birthrate from "dangerously low" to "extinction level".
More options
Context Copy link