|
What kind of insufferable egotistical cocksucker actually says this poo poo about themselves? Like, conservatives may believe evil things, but at least they usually aren't intellectual elitists who believe everyone else just isn't as unbiased and impartial as they are. I feel like this sort of political outlook says something bad about a person on a level that goes beyond just being ignorant or identifying with a group that is expected to hold certain bad political views. Like it indicates a fundamentally toxic personality.
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
wizard on a water slide posted:these are going to be america's dying words lmao I mean, conservatives are still objectively worse, but there isn't the same sorta hypocrisy where a person views themselves as a paragon of post-political enlightened objectivity despite being just as ideologically biased as anyone else. I'd still vote for such people over conservatives, but I sure don't enjoy doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Greenwald isn't good, but he also isn't worse than your average liberal pundit (and is probably better, all things considered), so it's always a little weird to see liberals attacking him. He definitely has this urge to be contrarian, but that's still better than being the type of journalist who just recites pentagon press releases.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:need to model our social reforms on the enduring ones of countries like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia Unlike Yugoslavia, fortunately the US wouldn't have to deal with US hostility and trade sanctions if it went socialist. While "the hostility of capitalist nations" is definitely a problem to overcome, it's misleading to act like it's an inherent quality of socialism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
1982 Subaru Brat posted:And you just know the reason they're even on this morbid train of thought is because they reckon themselves important enough to be "assassinated" rather than murdered. It excites them. Instead they'll just go hopelessly broke when the bubble pops and spend the rest of their lives being a boring rear end in a top hat at the end of a bar who never shuts up about their glory days The sad thing is I imagine most of these people, even if they become somewhat less mega-rich at some point, will still end up rich as hell. All because their crazy libertarian impulses happened to coincide with a tulip craze at just the right time. It's tempting to assume that there'll be some cosmic justice where these folks become not-rich at some point, but sometimes (or more realistically "usually") good things just happen to bad people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:A person like Quinn Norton could only happen due to the incredible levels of privilege that middle class white people have heaped upon them, to the point that even despite palling around with Nazis and dropping N-bombs on your social media accounts, you can still be hired on by the most prestigious newspaper in the country because you're also a performatively woke lib. I feel like there's a huge difference between the sort of middle class that involves growing up with parents who make at least several times median wage (or ending up making that kind of money yourself just due to luck/connections) and the sort of middle class that involves actually making around median wage. I'm not sure if it really makes sense to refer to the sort of people who have parents making six figures as "middle class," at least as long as the term is still used to refer to people making around median wage. They should at least be referred to as "upper-middle class."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:median wage is not middle class I guess you can define things that way, though I feel like the word "middle" has a sort of rhetorical implication of "average" or "in the middle," so it seems weird to use the label for group of people who are better off than at least 4/5 of Americans.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:The fact that you don't have any factual objections but still dismiss him as an intellectual because of his (badly) perceived political leanings kinda proves his point doesn't it? You are right about saying it is wrong to think there are measurable genetic differences in intelligence between populations without solid evidence. He doesn't indicate that he does. He is right in that it is also wrong to do the opposite, at least as a scientist. No, he isn't right. The default assumption should be that difference in behavior are due to environmental causes, absent any evidence that they can be attributed to genetics/biology. This is because genetic differences between populations are far too minor to have any sort of noticeable effect on phenotypes as ridiculously complex as intelligence or behavior (barring "catastrophic" things like having some sort of genetic disorder or something, but that wouldn't be relevant to discussing entire ethnic groups). On the other hand, we do know that environment has a huge impact on behavior and intelligence. So basically you have a situation where you have two possible causes; one that has been shown time and time again to have a huge impact on behavior/intelligence, and the other where there's no clear evidence that the set of traits that differ between populations impacts them. It makes sense to assume the former is the case unless you can specifically point to a consistent genetic difference between ethnic groups and show a causal relationship between it and some behavioral trait. Basically, the idea of intelligence/behavior differing between ethnic groups is the sort of thing that seems to make sense if you're a layperson who is ignorant about genetics. But if you understand anything about the topic, you quickly realize the absurdity of complex traits influenced by countless genes (+ environmental factors and gene/environment interaction) varying to any measurable degree due to the extremely minor genetic differences between ethnic groups. It isn't accurate to compare stuff like intelligence/behavior with something like disease susceptibility (which is a common comparison people making this argument use), because the latter is often determined by just a single gene (or a small number). Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 18:48 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Yeah I don't think lay people should try to question the findings of scientists. That's what peer review is for. What you are describing is mostly a mathematical problem and is something that should be able to be put into a hypothesis, tested and peer reviewed. If that's been done, he is indeed wrong. The science to show such a link doesn't really exist, because we don't have any sort of reliable/accurate model for how things like intelligence/behavior (which are hard to define in the first place) are linked with genes. But what we do know makes it exceedingly unlikely that such a link exists across population groups (at least to an extent that wouldn't be completely negligible). Unlike some other traits, everything we know shows that a trait like intelligence is contributed to by a huge variety of genetic factors (as opposed to having a small number that have a disproportionate impact), so you can logically conclude that populations that only differ slightly on a genetic level won't show any difference in that trait (as opposed to a trait that is only determined by a single or handful of genes, in which case the genetic difference between populations might actually have an impact - see: disease susceptibility). So I guess what I'm getting at is that it's not just a "we don't know yet" thing, but rather a "this is exceedingly unlikely" situation. It's sort of like if someone said "but can you disprove psychics exist??" in response to people denying their existence. Like, yeah, you can't, but there is nothing indicating they do, so it makes sense to assume they don't unless something randomly pops up. Though this situation is even worse in a way, because we actually do know some stuff pointing towards such a link either not existing or being negligible (plus all the nasty social issues associated with trying to draw a link between ethnicity and intelligence/behavior). (The main reason I harp on this is that it's the sort of thing that could actually make sense to a reasonably intelligent layperson; "ethnic differences have a biological source, and intelligence is influenced by biology" would normally lead one to the conclusion that ethnic groups might differ in that area if they weren't aware of some of the specific details.) edit: If anyone who knows more wants to comment or correct something, they're welcome to do so. I'm basically a mostly-layperson myself on the subject; I work with geneticists and have a stronger background than your average science-interested layperson as a result, but not at the level of an actual geneticist obviously. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 04:42 on Feb 22, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
lol that article literally just blindly asserts a bunch of stuff without even attempting to support it in any way. Usually articles like this at least make some half-assed attempt to twist some polls/statistics to support their point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
quote:Another wanted a Mercedes, “like my dad.” Am I correct in assuming most of these women are probably from rich families? My gut instinct is that this is the sort of article where most of the people interviewed/profiled are from the upper class. Sheng-Ji Yang posted:didnt include felix, abstained If you combine Elizabeth and Matt Bruenig's votes they win!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:this woman is impossibly intolerable Bari Weiss is the sort of person who is obviously the product of great privilege. She has the sort of attitude that can only be developed through the experience of living a life where nothing ever goes wrong and you never experience any real hardship.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
I remember in high school AP Literature (I think 2003) our teacher had us read two op-eds, with one intended to be liberal and other intended to be conservative, I guess for "balance" or something. The two op-eds were by Maureen Dowd and George Will. I remember they were both bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:a few days ago the NYT published an op-ed by David Reich about race and genetics, and now: My boss sent that article to us (he is a geneticist) and the article is actually generally correct and I agree with its point about it being counterproductive to deny the fact that genetic differences between human populations do exist, since that's just a thing that is kind of obviously true. The only significant thing I disagreed with was the idea/implication that there's any real significance to stuff like that gene predicting years in education (we're basically incapable of proving any causal relationships when it comes to behavioral traits like that which likely have countless genetic and environmental factors contributing to them, and I think most people will misinterpret "predicts" as "causes"). But the greater point about human populations that can be grouped together genetically existing and having actual differences that might have some tiny impact on certain complex traits is still valid, though I would make sure to heavily emphasize the relative insignificance of these differences and the fact that they're irrelevant when discussing individuals. Generally speaking, there are a lot of non-scientists who just blindly assert things about this topic, and I think that's risky because, as the article says, it lets racists call them out as ignorant and dominate the discussion with their own flawed conclusions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:yes I'll never know what the gently caress my professor was thinking when she assigned The World is Flat to us for our junior year "International Economics" course in college. This was at NYU Stern too, so it wasn't like some random college business program. Friedman's stuff just comes off as so obviously stupid that it's hard to comprehend how an educated adult with a PhD who literally studies economics could read that book and think "mm yes, very insightful, I should assign this to my students."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:condolences on having spent a couple hundred grand to get the privilege of being propagandized to at a b-tier finance finishing school. It was not particularly useful, though I did fortunately have a scholarship (though I was still out like $20k in loans; if I could go back in time I would have just gone to a state school that gave a full scholarship). The most useful thing I gained from it was a number of networking connections I'll probably never use since I no longer work in anything related to finance/business. I just find it amusing because, even as far as economics goes, Thomas Friedman is particularly stupid. Like, there's plenty of other mainstream economics stuff that isn't quite as obviously stupid. Usually they manage to at least write things in a way that comes off as impressive and complex to laypeople, but Friedman is obviously a fool who has no idea what he's talking about. zeal posted:economics departments exist to cheerlead for business departments Hey, it isn't my discipline (thank god); I double majored in information systems and now work as a programmer at a public university for a web tool used by geneticists/biologists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:When jobs that require a lot of training pay less, less people go toward those fields. See: Teachers. I think the issue isn't so much that they pay "less," but rather that they don't pay enough to live an enjoyable, low-stress lifestyle. edit: Also teachers currently have to deal with a bunch of unnecessary bullshit, like doing unpaid work preparing lesson plans or having to pay for their own school supplies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I'll just say I disagree with the core argument, as I believe that if someone does significantly more work than someone else but doesn't get paid more, that they will become jealous. I think this would be a problem in terms of "working more (or a more unpleasant job)," but not with regards to education (since in this hypothetical society higher education would be covered by the state). There are some partial solutions (like splitting more unpleasant work among many people working part-time, though that's obviously not possible for everything), though I agree that it's probably true you'd need some compensation disparity for the particularly lovely jobs (though the way society works now, there's almost a negative correlation between the difficulty of work and how much a person is paid*, so if anything we're already experiencing a hosed up "more work doesn't equal more money" society). * Like, to take myself for example, I make $37k with an extremely low stress job where I sit at a computer all day and can easily take off when I'm sick or be late or whatever. I have friends who make like $10 or $11/hr in retail, and they work waaaay harder than I do. And I know people from college who make six figures as financial analysts or accountants, and they don't work much more than I do. As things stand now, with rare exceptions, the hardest and most unpleasant work is generally the work that pays the least.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
This is extremely hosed up. Most of these doctors just don't understand anything at all. Like, take this part for example: quote:“We’ve literally had some continue using drugs while in the hospital,” said Dr. Thomas Pollard, a veteran cardiothoracic surgeon in Knoxville, Tenn. “That’s like trying to do a liver transplant on someone who’s drinking a fifth of vodka on the stretcher.” If the person is on some drug like opiates or benzodiazepines, they're gonna be totally hosed if they have to stop using for more than ~4-5 hours (if it's particularly short-acting), and you can't always rely on the nurses/doctors to be willing or able to give you the type of drug you need to avoid going into withdrawal. My guess would be that it's rarely done recreationally in situations like the one described, but is instead done to stave off withdrawal, but your average layperson (which includes most medical professionals when it comes to addiction) can only understand it in terms of "well, drugs make you high, so they must be taking it as some recreational thing." Also, that analogy just isn't even accurate in many cases. Like, if someone uses opiates the opiates themselves aren't what's causing the damage; it's whatever infection was passed through the needle. In general, the medical profession is extremely hostile to addicts, particularly if they "look a certain way" (read: black or "unkempt" as a white person). I understand that this is often a result of repeated back experiences with people drug-seeking and what have you, but I don't think that's really an excuse (since there are still some doctors/nurses who don't develop that lovely attitude). edit: Also, I really doubt the same doctors who think "well, there's no point if they're just going to use again" use the same logic when applied to very old people who aren't going to live much longer anyways. The only difference is that the latter is guaranteed to only extend life by a limited amount, while the former has a non-zero change of extending it by decades.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:tbf He's bitching about Seattle's seemingly unwillingness to do anything significant for the homeless Keep in mind that by "anything significant" he seems to mean "forcefully commit them to asylums" or something. I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that one person responded with disgust when he brought this up (the one who said "this isn't Nazi Germany").
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:was looking for something else and found gold quote:Sanders fans, sometimes referred to derogatorily as “Bernie Bros” or “Bernie Bots,” at times harassed reporters covering Mr. Sanders and flooded social media with angry posts directed at the “corporate media,” a term often used by the senator. lol, that piece is basically entirely a "just asking questions" piece of propaganda against Sanders and the left. Attitudes like this (listing "possibly an addict," or "mentally ill" for that matter, as something that would make a person "feel queasy about personal contact") are why, as an addict myself, I don't trust liberals. They might claim to care about stuff like treating opiate addiction, but on an emotional level they perceive addicts as some sort of filthy untermenschen. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 18:49 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
large adult son posted:a story defending israel under the heading "democracy dies in darkness" is pure gold The "Democracy Dies in Darkness" thing is so hilarious. Like it amazes me they do that with a straight face. I imagine that their perception of the world is accompanied by a movie soundtrack or something.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Who is the NYTimes even targeted at now? Most of the liberal types in D&D and what have you don't even think it's good and seem to have chosen WaPo as their Respectable Newspaper of choice. Maybe older liberals?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2018 08:15
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:the fact that 10,000 unarmed civilians have been intentionally gunned down by an occupying nation in the last 2 months, 61 of them killed, is a surreal moment in modern history. these are dark times I wouldn't be surprised if the actual death toll ends up being considerably higher, since a portion of those thousands injured (I think 2000+?) are likely to die from their injuries becoming infected or whatever (which the terrible infrastructure situation doesn't help).
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Dutchy posted:this whole line is so infuriating lol, how can anyone say this type of thing with a straight face and no shame It is because they perceive Palestinians (and any other Muslim) as just some generic lunatic brown person hollering and raving, while they perceive Israelis through the lens of "smiling white-looking IDF soldier." edit: Sorry, didn't mean to double-post Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 19:24 on May 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:David Brooks has a column out today called One Reform to Save America". What that reform is... may surprise you. The amusing thing is that while his conclusion is something good, the problems he identifies are totally absurd (American politics becoming too "extreme," and there being four primary parties of liberal/conservative Republicans and Democrats respectively).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Ding ding ding. Elite schools don't teach you secret elite chemistry or whathaveyou, they teach the same courses as other colleges. The "elite" part is that they're places for the elite to network and learn class solidarity. The bubble is the whole point. Basically it ingrains in you a certain idea of "normalcy" that consists of getting certain types of jobs and making certain amounts of money. The people I know who went to those schools and continued down that sort of life path (as consultants, lawyers, people in the tech industry, etc) basically live lives in some bizarro world where life is awesome and consists of living in nice places and traveling and doing fun things while not having to worry about your material well-being (or that of anyone close to you). The best way I can think of describing it, if you were privileged enough to not grow up in poverty, is that they live their entire lives in the same bubble you may have been in as a child (and maybe college student if you didn't have to work to pay your way through). There's never a time when they really have to "grow up" and deal with the normal stresses of adulthood, because they easily transitioned from childhood into a very high paying career (and so did most/all of the people they know).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
LGD posted:again, me, because I loving hate it when people are disingenuous about this stuff because it happens to come from someone they like- I've liked sarah jeong's work for a long time, but edgelord posts about a subject are still posts about a subject (see: james gunn joking about pedophilia, uncouth rape jokes, etc.) Whether what you're calling "eliminationist rhetoric" is a problem depends entirely upon context. In the context of contemporary America, such rhetoric aimed at white people is not a problem, because white people are the dominant racial demographic in no danger of facing such an outcome. Such rhetoric aimed at other minority groups, on the other hand, is a problem, because those groups are actually exposed to the harmful effects of racism and have a reason to fear violence against them (state-sanctioned or otherwise).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 02:00
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:9 million people starve to death every year under global capitalism. Um, actually you'll find that those deaths are because of socialism. Think about it - those deaths only occurred in a world where socialism exists. You can't disprove the possibility that they would have never happened if socialism never existed! Zoran posted:I agree that saying end white people is fine Yeah, I think there's a difference, and also the "burn all flyover states" type stuff is often punching down (privileged liberals in major cities "joking" about killing all rurals, etc). There's usually a very heavy classist implication involved (they're not imagining wealthy people - they likely have a mental image of poor whites in mind). And that's not even getting into the whole "a very large portion of black people live in the areas they're usually referring to" stuff (though that mostly just reveals how stupid and superficial their own politics are). Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 02:47 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:the wapo fact checker is at it again! It's been amazing how much the media has been flipping out over her. I can't count the number of articles I've seen that are negative about her in some way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:but this is some sub-Xinhua levels of fix in the news coverage. its not even subdued liberal pearl-clutching pining for ideals that never were, its just overt puppetry and marketing applied to politics at this point. Yeah, I've mentioned before how all the "THE LEFT IS FAILING!" articles read like the sort of thing you'd show someone else as a textbook example of propaganda. TrilliontonNixon posted:No you see America is an eagle. It needs both a left wing and a right wing to soar. fuckin wisdom man, so wise...... Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 19:11 on Aug 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:https://twitter.com/stanislavski666/status/1031477727780655104 I'm getting deja vu from this. Wasn't an article almost exactly the same as this published a while back? Like about war being good for feminism or something. edit: I think that one was about the Syrian war or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
The XKCD Larper posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/technology/personaltech/track-your-life-app.html This guy sounds like early drug addicts trying to justify how their use is totally a good idea and net positive, including the citing of dubious studies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Liberals are easily manipulated by "fact-checking" because they know that "facts matter" but are too dumb to realize that they can also easily be manipulated to sell a particular narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
Trump is going to publicly execute whoever wrote that article. He will crucify them on the roof of the white house.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
I'm only half-joking about Trump ordering the execution of the writer if he discovers who it is. He seems really angry.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:This is the most boring bullshit. It's like a game of whackamole with easily disproven idiocy. lol this is the perfect analogy. My experience with arguments like this consists of constantly seeing points that I remember having already seen disproved, but not wanting to go through the effort of looking them up and citing them again (and not remembering the specific details of the debunking off the top of my head, because I have a bad memory). The same things just keep coming up over and over again.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Gunshow Poophole posted:DOWD'S BACK. in navelgaze form I remember in 12th grade AP English our teacher had us read two editorials, and I guess to keep it "bipartisan" or something one was by Maureen Dowd and the other was by George Will, lol. I wish I could say that I thought they were dumb, but honestly I don't remember much about them, and given I was a pretty standard liberal at the time I probably even liked the Dowd one (this was during the early Bush years).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:lmao that bari weiss will never be fired. just lmao It amazes me that she even exists. It feels like some random conservative shithead student from college were arbitrarily put on the NYTimes editorial board. (because that's basically what it is)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:lmao The logic these folks (and the people who like to cite polling data and stuff to make points like this) seem to use consists of "yes, this data may not actually prove what I'm trying to say, but you must still assume what I'm saying is true simply because I have data." Like, it's some bizarre thing where they assume that making a vaguely "data-based" argument is inherently better than a non-data based one, even if its methodology is wrong. At the end of the day it will always be possible to "prove" that people generally prefer mainstream policies with polls, simply because people have a tendency to trust things they hear about through mainsteam channels more. But the results of these polls would instantly change if suddenly all Democratic politicians said "by the way, _____ is now a thing A Good Liberal is supposed to support." Basically the core flaw is that they assume that people have some sort of "genuine preference" that isn't dynamic or influenced by what they see and hear from politicians and the media (and that this preference is reflected by polls). Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 18:14 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2018 18:10
|
|