philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
philosoraptor
7d ago
(Looks at this.)
(Notes that the next eight top-level posts after this one are more or less directly about the midterms, and even the one that finally broke the streak uses Abdul El-Sayed's wife as its main example, a person who is only relevant because of them.)
Well, that worked well.
philosoraptor
7d ago
Trump is the whole reason that's happening, if it is. "Dunking on" him is entirely appropriate.
philosoraptor
7d ago
I'm a bit confused. Rey's backstory was a big point of disappointment for a lot of people, but what's woke about it? If anything, the thing where she turns out to be from a famous Force-sensitive bloodline after all could be read (but mostly wasn't!) as far-right in the same way as the Pureblood supremacy stuff in Harry Potter sometimes is. But mostly people don't object to it for that reason, but simply because it's lame.
philosoraptor
20d ago
I think Jiro has the right of it here, and further, the academics often specifically pick terms that would obviously be "misinterpreted" in the pejorative way ("toxic masculinity" perhaps being the worst offender, or "symbolic racism").
I think "white supremacy" has everything else beat by miles, especially in its "no, I said 'supremacy', not 'supremacism', it's totes different!" manifestation.
philosoraptor
27d ago
That's not the Dunning-Kreuger effect. In the original D-K paper, the people who were slightly above average at a skill were the most accurately calibrated, and the people at the top end actually underestimated their ability. It's people who were below-average who tended to overestimate their skill level - the paper is called "Unskilled and Unaware Of It", after all.
philosoraptor
2mo ago
Trump in a presser who was quoted as saying "if I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state, and I had a chance to get a big plant in, an AI plant or a data center."
Is part of the quote missing? This isn't even a complete sentence. Reading literally, he never even gets around to expressing an opinion, though I suppose you can figure it out from context.
philosoraptor
2mo ago
I guess I've never heard an Aussie pronounce "pomegranate" but it's hard for me to imagine an accent in which it would rhyme with "immigrant".
philosoraptor
4mo ago
It's a pretty standard way to refer to a case, so I'd vote against - but, in a place like this where you can't assume every watches the US Supreme Court closely, you 100% should also give some context the first time you refer to one. Not just the general subject matter, but what the central question is. Or where applicable, what you might remember from news media reporting about it (whether those reports are accurate or not).
philosoraptor
4mo ago
Yes, I did. I made a few changes in the first few minutes, after realizing my initial version was much harder on Amadan than it needed to be and not really fair. And if you were responding to that version of my post, your response was wholly appropriate and captured some of the reasons I was editing it at that moment.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
That reason was just bad, as it excluded the option of "AF was confident in his interpretation, so he didn't ask".
Thus, my calling it "extremely weak circumstantial evidence". (It's not, for example, like he caught Arjin in a contradiction or anything like that.) I think we're agreeing on the basic facts and just assigning somewhat different descriptions to them.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
but I do not believe this for reasons I explained in my other post
You did not explain your reasons for thinking he was lying, or at best you gave some extremely weak circumstantial evidence of this, before moving on to your main topic which was psychologizing about why. It was actually one of the better examples of Bulverism I've seen here.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
To be absolutely clear and direct, I did not say, did not mean, and do not believe " if you think the "Braveheart" narrative is likely to be true, and remain unmoved by official government statements, it's because you hate brown people."
As a relatively neutral observer, I honestly have no idea how else your post can be interpreted. This just seems to be the straightforward meaning of your words. A lot of people seem to have come to that exact conclusion, and no-one - yourself included - has offered a plausible alternative reading. At the very least, your intended meaning and how it differs from what's quoted above is clearly nowhere near as obvious as you seem to think.
An explanation of what you did mean would be the obvious next step, well before calling people liars for believing the words in front of them meant what they appeared to say. Especially coming from a (soon-to-be-ex?) moderator.
philosoraptor
6mo ago
Are you endorsing @RandomRanger's claim that "There is no truth, only competing agendas" and that "There are no objective standards by which we can judge one culture better than another"?
No, I am telling you you're misreading that post very, very badly. That is not his claim, but his account (further elaborating on MWAM's) of what the postmodern-influenced keyboard activists in question believe in practise. (And also, between the lines but I may as well make it explicit now, that you need to calm down and take a few deep breaths...)
every statement you just made only reinforces @MonkeyWithAMachinegun's thesis.
Um... yes? That's the point? If this seems like a reasonable response to you, you're deeply confused about what that post is doing.
philosoraptor
6mo ago
I think my bigger question is: how the fuck is a company that was founded in 2011, and IPOed in 2017, employing over five thousand people while losing hundreds of millions of dollars per year, still in business?
It really seems like that's the deeper question here. Ever since ~2021, the economics of software companies have increasingly decoupled from the fundamentals that are supposed to describe a healthy business.
That's what a bubble looks like. It's not even the first one that industry has seen (partially) this century - remember the dot-com "boom"?
philosoraptor
6mo ago
(Unless you were a union worker in one of the industries Thatcher stopped subsidising, I suppose)
Um, she did a little more than "stop subsidizing" them.
philosoraptor
6mo ago
If nothing else it shows there's an important sense in which he was not a terrible politician but a very good one, contrary to the quoted text.
philosoraptor
7mo ago
At least in my experience, women are the first to claim that sex is not a big deal and discourage anything that shames promiscuity or a lack of self control.
I think this is one of those things that's true as long as the conversation remains abstract and unspecific, but frequently falls apart as soon as the conversation is about a concrete scenario the person is actually facing (or can imagine in a particularly vivid way). Kind of like "there's no reason women shouldn't be the ones approaching men rather than the reverse", most women agree in theory but freak out as soon as it's suggested they themselves put it into practise.
philosoraptor
7mo ago
Is there a "don't" or similar word missing near the end of that sentence?
philosoraptor
7mo ago
Trump kept his promise of no forever wars in his first term, and for most of his second term. The recent Iran action is an aberration
This is one of those "but you fuck one goat..." situations, though. The biggest difference by far is the jump from zero to one.
philosoraptor
9mo ago
Well, yes, what else can one do? "Here's my impressions from the video, here's an important question it leaves unanswered, here's the sort of evidence that would change my mind" is perfectly reasonable and I have no idea why you seem determined to describe it so uncharitably. It's more thoughtfulness than you'll see from the vast majority of people on social media.
A lot of people had to do dumb shit they shouldn't have done for Babbit's death to fall out of it, is what I take that person's point to be.
Pointing out that the police did something wrong doesn't require thinking the rioters were in the right. People have this zero-sum picture of how blame works that just doesn't correspond to reality at all. You see it from the other political direction in "victim-blaming" discourse - "maybe you shouldn't have dressed like that or gotten that drunk" does not mean "the guy who assaulted you did nothing wrong and you deserved it", but when people get emotional common sense gets left behind. In a lot of these situations, a lot had to go wrong, many people contributed to it, some of them doubtless behaved worse than others, but even so, it makes no sense to insist there is one and only party at fault.
philosoraptor
10mo ago
April Lavigne
Avril. I wouldn't bother if it was just once but you're both doing it, at least one consistently.
philosoraptor
10mo ago
It could have been more explicit but I think the idea was to draw an analogy between the academic journal and insider trading cases, as both being examples of the sort of thing he decries in the first part of the post - dishonorable behaviour being defended or even celebrated.
My grudging conclusion from trying it a few times myself is that most of them can't imagine the roles being reversed. For all that they love to paint themselves as powerless eternal underdogs, the reality is they're so used to wielding massive power to determine social reality that they just think of that as the natural order of things. Trying to imagine anyone substantially to their right having that power (even what would have been considered fairly extreme liberals when I was growing up) is like trying to imagine black being white or up being down or The Rise of Skywalker being the best Star Wars movie.
More options
Context Copy link