|
Small Frozen Thing posted:/pol/ skews older than pretty much all the rest of 4chan except /k/ incredibly sad if true
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
divabot posted:More LambdaConf! A bunch of illustrious and respectable names in functional programming and more general open source sign a statement on LambdaConf and Yarvin. https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/718718822027554816
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Just replace rev with a bot that tweets MY INGROUP IS ALWAYS RIGHT
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:One of my "favorite" things he's done was basically try to defend internet comment sections which you could tell caused him to twist himself into a whole bunch of hilarious mental gymnastics trying to reconcile his self-image of a Smart Cool Guy with trying to support and defend some of the objectively dumbest things humanity has ever created. The image is everything with him. He employs a group of 44 interns (many of them unpaid) who hail from 4chan-type places to write stuff for him. they have a group chat called, no poo poo, 'Project Milo'. But this is OK and totally normal because you know, he's so busy and golly gosh he just needs those 44 people to do that amazing journalism for him. Here's an article on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:The image is everything with him. He employs a group of 44 interns (many of them unpaid) who hail from 4chan-type places to write stuff for him. they have a group chat called, no poo poo, 'Project Milo'. But this is OK and totally normal because you know, he's so busy and golly gosh he just needs those 44 people to do that amazing journalism for him. Here's an article on it. Christ I thought that was an april fools thing. Also quote:“They use it in the sense that message boards use it … It was the n-word with an -a, not with an -er — they were quoting hip-hop lyrics.” ahahah he's seriously that guy
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
^^^Yeah, he's terrible, and he's outsourcing his terrible to other people, which is impressively terrible.Parallel Paraplegic posted:One of my "favorite" things he's done was basically try to defend internet comment sections which you could tell caused him to twist himself into a whole bunch of hilarious mental gymnastics trying to reconcile his self-image of a Smart Cool Guy with trying to support and defend some of the objectively dumbest things humanity has ever created. I just want to state categorically that internet comment sections are a Good Thing. Everything should have a Greek chorus, and we're lucky to live in a time when that's possible. If they aren't to your taste, stay out of them. Me and mine are going to go wallow in the worst humanity has to offer, the psychic effluvia of the entire human race, (all right, the entire human race that has internet access, so not everyone, not yet, but soon) and fish out the occasional gem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:I just want to state categorically that internet comment sections are a Good Thing. Everything should have a Greek chorus, and we're lucky to live in a time when that's possible. If they aren't to your taste, stay out of them. Me and mine are going to go wallow in the worst humanity has to offer, the psychic effluvia of the entire human race, (all right, the entire human race that has internet access, so not everyone, not yet, but soon) and fish out the occasional gem. Specifically he was saying that a news outlet was getting rid of their comments sections because everyone was too real and dropped too many truth bombs too often and they were afraid of the truth Like I'm not opposed to them existing, or having a place for idiots to go and reenforce each other's incredibly stupid ideas, but I also am not opposed to them not existing on private sites that don't want that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:The image is everything with him. He employs a group of 44 interns (many of them unpaid) who hail from 4chan-type places to write stuff for him. they have a group chat called, no poo poo, 'Project Milo'. But this is OK and totally normal because you know, he's so busy and golly gosh he just needs those 44 people to do that amazing journalism for him. Here's an article on it. Parallel Paraplegic posted:Christ I thought that was an april fools thing. Also It is an April Fools thing - Milo even tweeted a link to his store offering badges in on the joke about it. What is true is that another Brit wrote a memoir that reported Milo's junk as disappointing him visually. Will pull up the quote if I can but alas the one who has the physical copy is not replying to my query. Parallel Paraplegic posted:That's actually really interesting, do you have actual data on that from somewhere? I was basically going off the people I've met who go to /pol/ but then again the people I've met tend to be around my age anyway so it's obviously not a representative sample. I was curious about this and asked around - it seems it's from a mass doxxing event that managed to gather Facebook info or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Specifically he was saying that a news outlet was getting rid of their comments sections because everyone was too real and dropped too many truth bombs too often and they were afraid of the truth Well okay, fair enough. If a private site doesn't trust it's audience it has every right to censor them. I mean, it's not great, but for liability and ect. ect. reasons nobody should feel required to have comments. I do think it's a useful barometer of who your actual audience is, and what they're in favor of/opposed to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Well okay, fair enough. If a private site doesn't trust it's audience it has every right to censor them. I mean, it's not great, but for liability and ect. ect. reasons nobody should feel required to have comments. I do think it's a useful barometer of who your actual audience is, and what they're in favor of/opposed to. Except your "actual audience" generally doesn't leave comments, so you wind up with only the loud opinionated weirdos or random people linked an article dropping in to call obama literally worse than satan or whatever, and now that's permanently attached to your article and search results. Generally comment sections are added because marketing thinks it will drive ~brand engagement~ or something similar, but people who actually care about the thing discussed will generally talk about it somewhere else (like here, or more likely Facebook or Reddit) where there are more people, better moderation and/or less specific weirdos. Sites even provide links for that a lot of the time so it's not like it's hard to go talk about a thing somewhere better suited. It's also less likely to be stealthily pruned of things the publisher considers harmful to their brand or doesn't want said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
I will admit there are some places that actually have pretty okay comment sections, like some blogs, but I've never seen a news company with one that was even tolerable most of the time. Gawker was the closest and they still devolved into random people signing up to make one single post about "no actually women are bitches you dumb author" a lot of times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
"I'm not saying to pogrom these guys but if there was a pogrom we'd be sooooo good at it" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
My god, but there are a lot of neoreactionaries who use Twitter to write entire essays. "Why does the population of MIRI donators skew Caucasian? Well, if you take a look at the average negroid's IQ sco(1/97)"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
It must be agony for them to not bloviate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
If you haven't seen the "Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy", it's worth clicking into if only to read the headings and look at the diagrams. Those loving diagrams are the spergiest social interaction sperg that has ever sperged in the history of all sperglords, and I say that with "sperg" being a loving insult. I don't understand the conclusion they've drawn from their logic. If you recognize a diversity problem, and then actively take steps to encourage diversity in your participants, why would you maintain an invitation to someone that has positions that are actively opposed to the diverse audience you are trying to attract? That position might make sense if the conference was about diversity, but given the social climate of the diversity problem itself, can't they see the problem they've stepped into? This is not a place where maintaining internally consistent logic is the correct choice, because social interaction is not a problem you can solve with beep-boop logic. McGlockenshire has a new favorite as of 05:48 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:If you haven't seen the "Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy", it's worth clicking into if only to read the headings and look at the diagrams. Those loving diagrams are the spergiest social interaction sperg that has ever sperged in the history of all sperglords, and I say that with "sperg" being a loving insult. Speaking as a sooper-dooper autistic who literally spent pretty much all of elementary school as nonverbal, social interaction absolutely is something you can solve with beep-boop logic and make a decent run of things. The problem they have is that it doesn't matter how sound your logic is if you're working from a false premise. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:If you haven't seen the "Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy", it's worth clicking into if only to read the headings and look at the diagrams. Those loving diagrams are the spergiest social interaction sperg that has ever sperged in the history of all sperglords, and I say that with "sperg" being a loving insult. Actually I would argue you can through economic and social benefits of removing discrimination in the workplace. I feel like this is one point you should use logic for and attack false premise precisely because what they can respond to you is "it's just mushy feelings, pff typical liberal  "
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:Speaking as a sooper-dooper autistic who literally spent pretty much all of elementary school as nonverbal, social interaction absolutely is something you can solve with beep-boop logic and make a decent run of things. I'm glad that you have had a good level of success navigating social interactions that way. I am not professionally diagnosed as being on the spectrum myself, nor do I self diagnose as being on the spectrum. Instead, my social handicap is an extreme fear of embarrassment. In my experience, attempting to apply state machine logic to individual social interaction can work if the interaction will be a predictable one. I have never found success assuming logical flow of conversations that aren't about a predictable subject, and I consistently misjudge and stick my foot in my mouth. If this is one of those cases, I apologize. I'm gobsmacked by the content of the appendix and diagrams and have never seen any sort of breakdown of interactions like this before, and there's some deeply troubling content in there that they're simultaneously trying to treat as a logic problem and also immediately dismiss as subjective. quote:Physical and verbal assault can be measured and compared, and therefore regulated (not without some difficulty, of course). But emotional assault cannot be measured or compared, therefore it is not possible to regulate it in any principled way. [...] What is the depth of emotional assault in all these cases? How do you compare them? How do you decide who to allow into your space, and who to ban? If you go down this path, you have to make subjective judgment calls about whose pain is greater or more important to you. I simply can't grasp how you can be aware of this problem -- to the point where you're creating loving diagrams about it -- and yet so immediately dismissive of it. Small Frozen Thing posted:The problem they have is that it doesn't matter how sound your logic is if you're working from a false premise. I'm not sure that their central premise is actually false, though. Problem: You are running a conference for your industry, and you wish to ensure that a diverse audience is able to attend. Diversity of participants and the audience -- inclusion -- is a goal of the conference. The industry you are in has a problem with a lack of diversity. There is a perception that one group dominates participation, and this one group either actively or passively excludes other groups from participating. Solution: Create sets of rules that outline expected behavior of organizers, participants, and the audience. The ruleset should highlight and focus on diversity of experience and opinion. Groups should not be unwelcome, all groups should feel included. In order to maximize participation and focus on the topic of the conference, submissions for talks will be anonymous. This is good. Everything is fine. But then, we have Moldbug: Problem 2: A talk was reviewed and approved that ended up being from an author that has made numerous statements that make members of certain groups hesitant to associate with the author. The talk is topical and compelling enough to include in the conference. Solution 2: The author's viewpoints are protected speech. Diversity includes holding opinions, including unpopular opinions. It would not be logically consistent (read: would be hypocritical of us) to try and be inclusive and yet exclude someone for their opinions. The rules will be strengthened to ensure that there will be no shenanigans by the author. Again, this is actually OK. They are objectively correct to apply their diversity ruleset here. The rules are important and they are strong enough to stop most problems. If the author only held "normal" but divisive opinions, the problem would have ended here. Problem 3: There is mounting pressure to uninvite the author from this conference. This pressure comes from sponsors, from participants, and from attendees. Many state that the viewpoints of the author are incompatible with the concept of diversity. The author has previously been uninvited from other conferences for this reason. Solution 3: The author's viewpoints are protected speech. Diversity includes holding opinions, including unpopular opinions. It would not be logically consistent to be inclusive and yet exclude someone for their opinions. The rules have already been strengthened. If you choose to not attend, we are not the ones excluding you. They chose to double down. Again, while each of these statements is sound and can be seen as objectively correct, actually maintaining this viewpoint and explaining it in the way they did, with charts and all, is just absolutely unbelievable. Their central premise is that inclusion is necessary and that diversity is required. They need to ensure that the audience feels included, not excluded. Their ruleset and internal logic is a realization of this premise. The thing they're completely missing is that inclusion is not something you can force. When you actively invite someone that causes others to feel excluded, while it is correct to state that the people feeling excluded are "at fault" for excluding themselves, it is also your fault for creating the situation causing them to feel excluded. Simply stating that there is no endorsement of the author's viewpoints by having them speak is ineffective. By merely allowing them the platform of your conference to speak about conference-level materials, your conference becomes associated with the author. That association creates an implied endorsement. This is the same exact situation we find in politics. Politicians usually avoid associating themselves with controversial figures because of the possibility of implied endorsement. We've already seen a lot of that this year in the US presidential election. Because the very act of including someone has caused others to feel excluded, the only solution is to either a) exclude the author (by direct action) or b) exclude a group / set of groups (by inaction or indirect action). They chose staying with the author because that way they aren't the ones doing the excluding, which maintains internal consistency. The premise isn't wrong, the decisions made as a result of the premise are wrong. In either case, they end up as hypocrites, it just happens that the way they chose lets them think that they're logical and self-consistent and also create loving diagrams to demonstrate how logical and self-consistent their argument is. I think the only case where this decision wouldn't be hypocritical was if the conference was on the diversity / inclusion problem itself, in which case inviting the controversy would be topical and the point about self-exclusion would actually have some weight behind it. e: Also I think this is the longest non-programming post I've written in about five years. McGlockenshire has a new favorite as of 08:16 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:I'm glad that you have had a good level of success navigating social interactions that way. I am not professionally diagnosed as being on the spectrum myself, nor do I self diagnose as being on the spectrum. Instead, my social handicap is an extreme fear of embarrassment. In my experience, attempting to apply state machine logic to individual social interaction can work if the interaction will be a predictable one. I have never found success assuming logical flow of conversations that aren't about a predictable subject, and I consistently misjudge and stick my foot in my mouth. If this is one of those cases, I apologize. The secret of how to do social interaction via beep-boop logic is to do extensive, often first-hand study of social dynamics from a very young age, read every kind of sociology/psychology book you can get your hands on, and approach every day as if it's another experiment to learn what does and doesn't work. In other words it's an absurd amount of effort for something most people can do fairly simply and I'm utterly baffled by why there are (relatively) neurotypical nerds who view it as a thing to strive for and not just as a complicated method autistics use to compensate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:Because the very act of including someone has caused others to feel excluded, the only solution is to either a) exclude the author (by direct action) or b) exclude a group / set of groups (by inaction or indirect action). They chose staying with the author because that way they aren't the ones doing the excluding, which maintains internal consistency. The premise isn't wrong, the decisions made as a result of the premise are wrong. In either case, they end up as hypocrites, it just happens that the way they chose lets them think that they're logical and self-consistent and also create loving diagrams to demonstrate how logical and self-consistent their argument is. I think that the only way this argument is self-consistent is if you adopt a literal definition of inclusivity -- that is, 'everyone should have a chance to speak' -- while simultaneously throwing out the purpose of inclusivity, which is to give those who are traditionally denied a chance to speak, that chance. If including Moldbug makes the conference less appealing to people who are already on the edges of this particular society, then including him directly undermines your stated purpose. LambdaConf are hiding behind a definition of inclusivity which they have chosen because it allows them to paint themselves as enlightened good guys, while simultaneously not requiring them to change their patterns of behaviour at all. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or just them misunderstanding what inclusion is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Tumblrites are at worst rear end in a top hat teens looking for an excuse to bully people, and at best the exact opposite of that. Many of the alt-right, neo-reaction, dark enlightenment, and white nationalist figures that are the subject of this thread have tumblr accounts too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Yeah, Tumblr has far worse problems than overzealous kids. No one ever talks about poo poo like the time staff deleted the entire Ferguson tag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
Pomp posted:Yeah, Tumblr has far worse problems than overzealous kids. No one ever talks about poo poo like the time staff deleted the entire Ferguson tag. Like, content and all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
I was curious about that so I threw a Google and it seems that specifically they were deleting threads with personally identifying information http://www.dailydot.com/politics/tumblr-dox-kkk-ferguson-tag/ Since you can't see the reason something is deleted, it seemed like popular threads were being censored. Of course, this could be Tumblr covering their arses after a backlash, but it seems odd that this instance alone is when they decided to go Big Brother.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:This is incorrect. When I said "Tumblrites" I probably should have said "The Tumblr SJ Community" because obviously Tumblr is wider than the later group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Status:451's statement of moderation (against Vox Day's sjwlist doxxing wiki) is not meeting with the agreement of the commenters they riled up with their THE SKY IS FALLING crowdfunder; said commenters are spoiling for a knock-down drag out battle with the evil forces of social justice, and are totally onside with the sjwlist. So now the question is whether Status:451 notice what they're doing, and which way they proceed from here. Pull back or double down?Tesseraction posted:It is an April Fools thing - Milo even tweeted a link to his store offering badges in on the joke about it. The author of the article said no, it was in the works for weeks: "I agreed to wait two weeks to run the Milo story so as not to screw over one of my sources — three weeks ago. Forget April 1" https://twitter.com/Bernstein/status/715755551284666368 McGlockenshire posted:If you haven't seen the "Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy", it's worth clicking into if only to read the headings and look at the diagrams. Those loving diagrams are the spergiest social interaction sperg that has ever sperged in the history of all sperglords, and I say that with "sperg" being a loving insult. To be unduly generous, they're trying to convince the sort of people who might be convinced by the idea that they've totally reasoned this one out from first principles. McGlockenshire posted:I don't understand the conclusion they've drawn from their logic. If you recognize a diversity problem, and then actively take steps to encourage diversity in your participants, why would you maintain an invitation to someone that has positions that are actively opposed to the diverse audience you are trying to attract? That position might make sense if the conference was about diversity, but given the social climate of the diversity problem itself, can't they see the problem they've stepped into? This is not a place where maintaining internally consistent logic is the correct choice, because social interaction is not a problem you can solve with beep-boop logic. "We have no desire to be involved in this fight, nor to see others hurt by it. It’s not our war." As they're discovering, the war has come to them. But if they just TRY REALLY HARD they can pretend otherwise, and anyone who isn't a reactionary will believe them. "LambdaConf’s talk selection process will change next year." loving thank you. Perhaps you will still have a conference with anyone from the FP world next year. "LambdaConf will continue being a force for positive change." Much like Curtis Yarvin and Gamergate have. DeGoes' big problem is that he still doesn't realise that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It is an April Fools thing Whoops, my fault.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:Whoops, my fault. Nope, actually my fault: divabot posted:The author of the article said no, it was in the works for weeks: "I agreed to wait two weeks to run the Milo story so as not to screw over one of my sources — three weeks ago. Forget April 1" I assumed it was April Fools because he almost immediately had these out https://twitter.com/Nero/status/715918199867498496 But judging from his raging around that tweet that I've now seen I think he's really loving indignant that someone said it was the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:The secret of how to do social interaction via beep-boop logic is to do extensive, often first-hand study of social dynamics from a very young age, read every kind of sociology/psychology book you can get your hands on, and approach every day as if it's another experiment to learn what does and doesn't work. Completely off topic but have you heard about that experimental treatment using TMS that's allowed at least one guy to sense emotions for the first time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Arguments with my alt-right friend tend to go this way: Him: But, see, logically your idea is impossible because of the Principle of X and the Theory of Y and also Milton Friedman wrote Z in 1956 and that disproves your hypothesis. Me: But it's being tried in Sweden and the data suggests it actually works. Him: That's just the Fallacy of Something or Other! Socialism is literally the same thing as Stalinism! Cultural Marxism! Principle of Fallacious Theories XYZ! Me: But if you look at the actual data ... Him: *link to SSC blogpost on vaguely related topic* Me: ... And they say liberals live in ivory towers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
pookel posted:Arguments with my alt-right friend tend to go this way: That's always bugged me, there's a lot of people who love and cheerlead science, have a Darwin fish on their car, etc. yet ascribe to things like libertarianism or the Austrian school which basically says "well sure evidence and science says that works but my amazing old white guy deductive reasoning says otherwise "The most egregious example of this I guess is Penn & Teller, where they spent 90% of the episodes of Bullshit cheerleading science (once with actual literal cheerleaders, literally cheerleading science) and then the other 10% dancing around it or denying it because it didn't agree with them about global warming or economics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
potatocubed posted:I think that the only way this argument is self-consistent is if you adopt a literal definition of inclusivity -- that is, 'everyone should have a chance to speak' -- while simultaneously throwing out the purpose of inclusivity, which is to give those who are traditionally denied a chance to speak, that chance. Thank you for this, I think you've hit the nail on the head here. potatocubed posted:LambdaConf are hiding behind a definition of inclusivity which they have chosen because it allows them to paint themselves as enlightened good guys, while simultaneously not requiring them to change their patterns of behaviour at all. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or just them misunderstanding what inclusion is. I don't think we've been given a reason to believe that their views are anything less than honest. I think from the previous writing they've made that their choice of the literal definition of inclusion is only misguided, not malicious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
pookel posted:Arguments with my alt-right friend tend to go this way: Did someone say SSC? LIGHT THE CINGULATE BEACONS!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
GIANT OUIJA BOARD posted:Did someone say SSC? LIGHT THE CINGULATE BEACONS! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
This thread has improved immeasurably sine I remembered that there's an ignore function, and the only other improvement I can think of would be to remind everyone that you don't have to quote the whole post to respond to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:This thread has improved immeasurably sine I remembered that there's an ignore function, and the only other improvement I can think of would be to remind everyone that you don't have to quote the whole post to respond to it. But then how would we make you suffer with us?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
[edit] You know what, I don't need to be reading this poo poo.
Heresiarch has a new favorite as of 11:33 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:my experience as an atheist growing up consisted of feeling superior to people and finding it to be a deeply unsatisfying and even depressing thing There's this guy on my fb feed who added me to the local 'humanist' community. poo poo's loving stupid and they do literally nothing but say "Dawkins great, religion bad"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:The secret of how to do social interaction via beep-boop logic is to do extensive, often first-hand study of social dynamics from a very young age, read every kind of sociology/psychology book you can get your hands on, and approach every day as if it's another experiment to learn what does and doesn't work. They wish they were autistic imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Here, for your delight, is Peak Rationalist Tumblr Discourse:razors-on-her-tongue posted:okay but like why do people even think fascists are bad in the first place? Yeah, a lot of Tumblr users are terrifyingly young, and particularly the Tumblr rationalist crowd. But you should click on the notes, in which rationalists argue that other people did bad things too y'know and literally find the concept of fascism being bad a difficult idea to get their heads around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 22:20
|
|