ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
The most egregious cancellation of all time imho (James Damore) happened under Trump.
Man, we need some Catalogue of Cancellations, because I've lost track of what happened to who, and when. In any case I'd say the Twitter Files and Zucks confession of the government putting pressure to censor dissidents is probably more egregious.
Sure, you can have a liberal "my body, my choice" based argument on transgenderism, but it's about adults making their own decisions about their own bodies, not about abolishing sex-segregation in sports and all other spaces. Somehow liberals managed to go on a couple centuries without arguing for that, until like 5 minutes ago.
Trump held up a rainbow flag, and now in 2024 his campaign is at least 25% about how transgenderism is destroying womens' sports.
In what way is that against liberalism?
I'm mostly sticking to my guns. There are things that are causing me to adjust - I kept my mouth shut, but internally I was expecting a giant fireball at Boca Chica, not a successful booster catch. But I don't think that's enough to change my appraisal on him running his companies mostly on hype. Also if you check my big anti-Elon post, I ranked his companies from best to worst, and I rated Twitter at the top. If it wasn't for the advertiser boycott - which I consider a political affair, rather than anything market-driven - he'd be making bank off of it, and taking it to profitability, I think for the first time ever.
I'm actually somewhat worried he'll tank the whole MAGA thing by using his connections to Trump to try to save himself. But if it helps - I hope I'll be proven embarrassingly wrong, and y'all will get to shit on me for being a retard for all of eternity.
Well from my point of view, things did dramatically de-escalate with Biden.
Was it anything specific that gave you that impression? As far as I can tell to the extent things got better, it was a result of Reds escalating, not Blues de-escalating - Elon buying Twitter, the Bud Light boycott, Red states banning gender affirming care for minors...
But I think what I'm trying to say is that it's easier to critique idpol leftism when idpol leftism is explicitly in power.
I'm not interested in critique that doesn't result in anything.
Hell, how much of this was made possible by Elon buying Twitter?
All of it. Pre-Elon it was a regular occurrence for me to go "oooh, there goes another one" as another mildly interesting, not even very spicy, account gets the ban hammer. If it was still under old management, they'd probably be cracking down on Peanut the squirrel memes. That's without mentioning the impact of things like Community Notes.
Back in 2020 some people here tried to say a Biden win will the blue tribe to de-escalate, only for all the things you're warning about here to happen anyway. They'll keep on clamping down on dissent no matter what, they're doing it even in countries with no Trump. The idea they'd go easy on us if we let them win is hard to take seriously at this point.
Is there any chance people are being hasty on this, or are the numbers such that it's impossible for the end result to change?
That's not an axiomatic belief, it's a derived belief based on your definitions of "man" and "woman," which in turn descend from your beliefs about the duties and privileges a society should afford to members of each sex,
This is false. My definition of "man" and "woman" has nothing to do with duties and privileges a society should afford to members of each sex, and believing that it does already effectively means believing that men can be women relative to my definitions.
you could actually have a productive discussion with leftists about
To the extent you could have a reasonable exchange of ideas with a person like that, those ideas would not be representative of what is actually being pushed by their political establishment. This person would not acknowledge what the establishment is actually doing, instead they would constantly sane-wash it into something palatable. If you provide evidence that the sane-washed version ins't what's being pushed, and the version you're objecting to is, two things might happen depending on the temperament of the person: conversion ends, or they'll the thing they just swore isn't happening is actually good. I don't think that's a productive conversation.
You're assuming people here are siloed off in an echo-chamber. Please consider the possibility that we've been having these conversations for a long time, and what you claim simply does not fit our experience.
discussion with leftists
I doubt you'd change your mind, or the liberal's mind
Why are you conflating liberals with leftists?
The misinformation in your post and on twitter in general is reaching insane levels. People were voting without American citizenship?Really? Is there any proof of that actually happening?
Other people already posted links, what made you think this is something that couldn't have happened, and anyone believing otherwise must to be a result of "insane levels" of misinformation?
We all feel like we just got here, and the 2016 election is one of the reasons why many of us are here to begin with. We feel like it was barely yesterday.
How have you been doing @Southkraut?
Redot
So I had a some time this week and decided to give Redot another look. Turns out that their Twitter accunt has been hacked because of course it was, but other than that they seem to be chugging along. There's finally a build that runs on my distro of Linux out of the box, so I'm dusting off some of my old sandboxes, and going over the docs, because it's been a while since I did anything with Godot.
Funny, but you know what I mean,
Yes, but I like my version better.
"Assigned gender at birth" can rescue you if you have a pre-transition person that already wants to change their gender, but it won't when "universally regarded" includes the person in question themselves. If they denied that men can be women, that would mean someone who changed their mind later on either has always been a woman, or that they're not a woman now, which pro-trans people don't believe.
The Holocaust denial, YEC conspiracies and extreme esoteric weird online stuff seems more a consequence of being at home in a foreign country with a phone and babies for company;
Man, when did kids go from asking why is the sky blue to "I don't get it, mama, how can you dispose of so many bodies in such short time? They didn't have enough crematoriums in Auschwitz, it makes no sense, mama!"?
people who have Read The Sequences hold that 'man' and 'woman' are an inaccurate map of a more complicated territory
The left != people who have Read The Sequences. Also, I don't see how this idea is any less kooky.
There was a story about British Labour staffers working for Kamala as well. If this isn't illegal, I feel like it should be. I hope it doesn't kick off some trend where Americans help European parties in their campaigns.
So would you say it is unlikely that the dude got radicalized by Islamists, or are you just pointing out this is not a smoking gun? The latter claim is not interesting, as it's only a matter of time until it gets resolved now that there's a full-blown terrorism investigation. But I don't think this should be an argument that allows people to throw a wet blanket on the conversation around immigration and Islam.
I mean that the whole framework is designed so that you never end up having to eat crow. "My priors for this are very low. Oh, it happened anyway? Oh well, I promise to bump up my priors somewhat for the next time this non-repeatable event happens!".
I've only seen other people ask this question, but haven't seen an answer. I'd imagine you're right, but I'm not a lawyer.
It's not being sloppy with the phrase "without evidence", as @RenOS pointed it's more about elevating your position to the null hypothesis.
The whole Bayesian reasoning thing always felt like a gimmick to me anyway. You can claim to be a good Bayesian no matter the outcome of any particular case.
Who do you think will win, Trump or Harris?
If I had to bet, I guess I'd bet on Trump, but as a foreigner looking at the situation only through the Internet, I don't feel particularly confident.
Relatedly, do you think there will be issues certifying the election results? Which side do you think will struggle more if they lose?
Stranger things have happened I suppose, but it would be weird for Dems to do it after 4 years of handwringing over voter-fraud conspiracies. Don't think Trump will try anything either given how the last time turned out, unless they'll find a smoking gun.
And of course - do you think we'll see outright political violence? I certainly hope not, but it's good to be prepared.
My impression is people are tired. Maybe some half-heated protests. Maybe a lone-wolf attack. But nothing mass-scale, not even a repeat of J6.
Overall, how was your experience of this election? Did it seem noticeably different from any recent elections in any particular way?
It was bizarrely vibes based. No actual clash of ideas or policies, either from the candidates, or from their supporters.
Some follow-ups on past stories
The teenager accused of the fatal stabbing of three girls at a dance class in Southport has been charged with production of a deadly poison and a terror offence, the chief constable of Merseyside Police has said.
Axel Rudakubana, 18, will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court by videolink on Wednesday charged with production of a biological toxin, Ricin, and possession of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism.
The charges come after searches of his home in Banks, Lancashire, Merseyside Police Chief Constable Serena Kennedy said at a press conference on Tuesday.
The terror offence relates to a PDF file entitled Military Studies In The Jihad Against The Tyrants, The Al Qaeda Training Manual, Ms Kennedy said.
Previous discussion here, and here.
Part of the controversy was about how the right wing assumed the attacker was a boat-refugee and/or a recent immigrant, and while that part remains false, another part of it was about his religion, (see Al-Jazeera, Wikipedia, BBC, or even our own discussion) and how it was wrong / islamophobic to jump to conclusions this way. It now turns out that he was indeed radicalized by Islamists.
A shocking new development has emerged in the case of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif after a French journalist reportedly gained access to a damning medical report revealing Khelif has “testicles.” The news comes months after Khelif seized a gold medal in women’s boxing at the Paris Olympics.
The report was drafted in June of 2023 via a collaboration between the Kremlin-Bicêtre hospital in Paris, France, and the Mohamed Lamine Debaghine hospital in Algiers, Algeria. Drafted by expert endocrinologists Soumaya Fedala and Jacques Young, the report reveals that Khelif is impacted by 5-alpha reductase deficiency, a disorder of sexual development that is only found in biological males.
(...) The report concludes by recommending Khelif be referred for “surgical correction and hormone therapy,” to help him physically align with his self-perceived gender identity, and adds that psychological support would be required because the results had caused a “very significant neuropsychiatric impact.”
Previous discussion here and here, and here.
More than the object level of either of those stories, what I want to know is: what do?
I've had this discussion with @Hoffmeister25 about assuming the worst about your outgroup without any evidence. While I maintain that it's plenty of fun when your unproven stereotype-based claims are vindicated, I'm going to agree with him that this way lies madness, and that's no way to have a conversation on controversial political issues. On the other hand, I can't help but notice that this sort of recommendation for caution is asymmetrical. When mainstream institutions make a claim, that claim is itself treated as evidence, any caution goes out the window, and requests for evidence are met with ridicule. So how should we be approaching these controversies, given that bombshells like these hardly raise an eyebrow anymore?
As time goes on, I'm leaning more and more towards simply rejecting Rationalism, as it leads to cudgels like "falsely claimed without evidence" beloved by the mainstream media. Vibe Analysis has been the subject of some ridicule, but I think there should be some space to say "I don't have evidence for this, but my gut says there is something off here" and Reddit-tier "source?!" responses to that should not be accepted. At the end of the day we're only people, and our guts will influence us, no matter how much pretense of objectivity and evidence-baseness we'll put on top of that.
There's things like college sports where a women's divisions were established by a supposedly-liberal state decree in the first place (Title IX, I think). What's illiberal about enforcing that they remain women's divisions?
More options
Context Copy link