Bogan King posted:

Cumslut1895 posted:

I think Lowtax is notable for creating internet SJWism, apart from everything else

Garrand posted:

Wasn't sjw filtered to robocop at one point? Is that the source of that?

Ularg posted:

Did you not read his tweet, this is NOT a boycott.

poptart_fairy posted:

Did you, because he doesn't say it isn't, only that he doesn't like them. C'mon, of all the things to be posting...

Wrath of Mordark posted:

Skeleton Robocops?

Wrath of Mordark posted:

SJW to Skeleton addon makes LOB's post a tad more confusing. Skeleton Robocops?

Fathis Munk posted:

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/868529673159954432

Welp, we've been got folks, time to wrap up gay rights.

Midnight Voyager posted:

They do know that there will be more showings, right? It's not like the cake people said "We can't make you a cake today, it's straight people cake day, but we can do it tomorrow!"

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/AlamoNYC/status/867848707592642560

nerdz posted:

from the incel thread:

nerdz posted:

from the incel thread:

Jerry Cotton posted:

Do florists not deliver anymore

Jerry Cotton posted:

Do florists not deliver anymore

Absurd Alhazred posted:

You can refuse a florist.

Data Graham posted:

Flowers delivered by a florist wouldn't have that charming personal touch that can only come from finding the bouquet outside your loving bedroom door in a locked house.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

From incel to in cell.

nerdz posted:

from the incel thread:

Picnic Princess posted:

Men: "Let's exclude women from society for hundreds and hundreds of years."
Women: "Let's have fun by ourselves for one night."
Men: "gently caress you bitches! I thought you wanted equality! This is misandry! Feminists stole my ice cream!"

Mak0rz posted:

This is a "live feed" of just this still photograph. The like/reaction icons are flying across the screen in real-time as people click them.

Olive Garden tonight! posted:

Here ya go

burexas.irom posted:

I always wonder who/what is pooping the ice cream

quote:

Nonsense. 100% nonsense, from Shakespeare to Booth to the author of this article.

Upchuckable.

A grand humiliation to civilization on earth.

To have anyone suggest I pay any attention to this total garbage is outrageous, infuriating, insulting, demeaning, degrading, despicable, down to just plain depraved.

Look, I know the English language fairly well. I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in it for my Ph.D. from one of the world's best research universities.

I've published, in the English language, in high quality peer-reviewed journals of original research.

For that Shakespeare quote from Antony and Cleopatra, that's definitely NOT English. It's not French or German, either. Since about half the words are in an English dictionary, it's not any language other than English. Since none of the sentences, phrases, whatever make any sense at all, no more sense than random words thrown on a page, it's definitely not in any natural language at all. Did I mention garbage? That's too kind.

For four years in high school and two more in college, I was force fed that garbage; no goose was ever force fed such vile garbage.

I came, after considerable reflection and education, to the rock solid, granite hard, iron clad conclusion that Shakespeare was a deranged mental basket case, a cognitive zero, and a total idiot.

I deeply, profoundly, bitterly hate and despise Shakespeare and all the time I wasted being force fed that sewage.

Again, Shakespeare's writing is not in any language at all. It's all just meaningless garbage.

I can do as well using a random number generator to string together words, half from an English dictionary and half just made up, random strings of letters. Literally.

If Shakespeare had ever had a coherent thought, then maybe he should written it down. So far there's no evidence he ever so thought or wrote.

Anyone with half a brain of a half wit or more should be forever ashamed to have his name associated with such garbage.

Shakespeare's writing actually does not belong on the scrap heap of history or even in a sewer; those treatments would be high honors, astronomically high grade inflation.

Shakespeare's writings belong in a toxic waste dump in a subduction zone to disappear into the mantle of the earth for millions of years to be utterly destroyed by molten rock or just launched into the sun.

The attention paid to Shakespeare is one of the biggest mistakes of civilization.

Actually, there was a good writer in England in the 1600's, a very good writer, a good candidate for the best who ever lived and wrote, Issac Newton.

Gee, maybe Newton would have also done Einstein's work had Newton not been in a country waist deep in the toxic sewage of Shakespeare.

A few months ago I chatted with a girl who was in college with me. I was a math major and nearly also a physics major. She confessed with considerable shame that she'd been an English major. Her shame was fully justified. The tragedy is that the college offered such toxic sewage in its course catalog.

Come ON guys; get a remedial education. First look up the definitions of countably infinite and sigma algebra. Then prove that there are no countably infinite sigma algebras.

Post here as a response to my post, and I'll grade your answer.

Next, for a positive integer n, the set of real numbers R, a set C a subset of R^n and closed in the usual topology, show that there is a function f: R^n --> R so that f(x) = 0 for all x in C, f(x) > 0 otherwise, and f is infinitely differentiable.

I'll grade your answers to this one also.

For a third, look up what statistical hypothesis tests are and, then, distribution-free tests. Then construct a family of statistical hypothesis tests that are both multi-dimensional, say, in R^n, and distribution-free and use Ulam's result 'tightness' to show that the tests are not trivial.

I'll grade that one, too.

Get one of those three, and you'll deserve some college credit in a course with some serious content. Get all three and you may be admitted to a Master's program in pure/applied math at a good university.

Whatever, just doing well attacking those three will start to give you a decent education that you missed in English class.

I HATE English literature, especially Shakespeare. In high school, I feared that the problem was with me. I know much better now: The problem was with English literature -- toxic sewage.

SIX years of wasted time: I want a refund with triple damages. I want a class action suit on behalf of every student forced to sit for even 45 minutes even once in any class in English literature.

As long as Shakespeare is taught in high school or college, no student should ever be failed because no student ever wrote a test or term paper as totally meaningless as that quote from Antony and Cleopatra. Thus Shakespeare is destructive, dangerous rot at the core of our civilization.

Out. Turn it out. Drive it out of our schools and universities, out of civilization.

quote:

SOME OTHER DUDE: All writers then? All literature? Shakespeare invented binary code. All or nothing. Your pick.
Or? How about speech? Language gets a look in in your Math utopia?
(See what i did. Two prepositions to pee you off )?
Maybe you should look at Cyrano de Bergerac. Non merci.

quote:

You have some problems with (1) reading comprehension and (2) thinking. Maybe some community college could help you with (1), and an actual good college education, with (2).

E.g., your question"All writers, then?" You failed to read: I clearly said that Newton was a good writer. Got to be able actually to read; it's IMPORTANT!

"All literature?"

Basically, yes: I concentrated on the absolute worst possible, Shakespeare.

Worst possible? Sure: Just look again at the total gibberish, meaningless nonsense in that quote from from Antony and Cleopatra: Again, yet again, once again, over again, one more time, this time just for you, that quote is just gibberish, has no more meaning than random words picked from a dictionary and the rest just random characters, e.g., what's with all the apostrophes?

Again, likely you are missing the obvious central point: In that quote, Shakespeare quite literally wrote NOTHING in a natural language. I'm not exaggerating at all: There is quite literally NOTHING at all there. Sure, there's no deep or profound content or meaning; instead it's just, and this is the correct word, although I hate to repeat it, gibberish. Or NOTHING. Anything you, Booth, or the Shakespeare cult see in that writing is what you and they bring to it as you/they would bring meaning to a Rorschach.

What Shakespeare wrote there, and nearly always, has no more content, meaning, etc. than something written in Chinese characters for someone who knows no Chinese at all -- literally.

If I were in an English class again, I'd stand, state, and insist that the class drop that material because it is quite literally unreadable, completely without content, is not English, is not even any natural language. Period.

If I wrote a term paper that way, even for an English class, I'd get F for content and F for style. I'd lose one letter grade for bad word choice and instance of bad grammar and have a grade of F within a few lines. Shakespeare deserves no better. Literally. No exaggeration. None.

Totally meaningless gibberish such as in Shakespeare is, of course, the worst any writing can ever be. So, it was good to concentrate on Shakespeare.

But for the rest of "literature", nope, it's nearly all from worthless down to positively harmful. By literature I mean bell lettre, fiction, fictional stories.

Problems:

(1) In such writing it is nearly never made at all clear just what the heck the actual points are, what is claimed to be true.

(2) Even if a reader tries to guess what the points are, the evidence given is junk, rarely up to even the level of anecdotes.

No one in any serious field now -- math, physical science, social science, bio-medical science, economics, finance, law, medicine, engineering, national security, computer system design -- would ever take such writing at all seriously.

E.g., an airplane designed with such writing would never get off the ground, and since, thus, it could not fall out of the sky, for it not to get off the ground would be a very good thing. Bridges would routinely, soon fall down. Buildings would fall over in the first high wind. Tunnels would collapse within a few days. No ship could cross an ocean. Steam engines would usually, soon explode. Telephones wouldn't work well enough to be useful at all. Electricity would go snap,
crackle, pop, and daily start fires. No one would go to a hospital no matter how bad they hurt. Physical science would still be back in the days of flogiston and Ptolemy's epi-cycles and much worse. Medicine would not understand the causes of the Black Death, malnutrition, syphilis, infections, the flu, etc. There would be no antibiotics, anesthetics, or vaccines.

Literature used to be regarded as productive intellectual activity. Well, so was astrology. Now we know much better. So, literature and astrology are at best for the junk heap of history.

So, why does literature persist? Well, literature has story telling, and that can be entertaining as in vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment (VEFEEE). Slightly more
refined is what the ancient Greeks discovered that we now call formula fiction. Movies and TV dramas are awash in it. Much of news uses similar techniques.

So, at best literature is light entertainment.

But literature has no rationality, no criteria for quality control, and, thus, is often dangerous, e.g., propaganda.

"How about speech?"

You are totally confused: You are equating any writing with literature – wrong, profoundly wrong. Again, once again, ..., as I wrote and you failed to understand, Newton was a good writer. Apparently you can't see the difference between good writing, e.g., Newton, and the intellectual sewage of literature. You should ask for your college tuition back.

Yes, when we need to teach writing, commonly we give the work to teachers of
English literature. Wrong! English literature is NOT the good writing we need
to teach, and that's much of the core reason "Johnny doesn't know how to write.".

Well, for "speech", sure, there is good speech like there is good writing. And like there is the bad writing of Shakespeare, there is the bad speech of poetry reading, e.g., Shakespeare.

> "Language gets a look in in your Math utopia?"

That's not an English sentence. You are writing gibberish. You are getting an F in writing, like Shakespeare.

I never said that math was a "utopia". You are getting an F in reading comprehension.

You might try to go to college and get a real education. Totally skip English and all literature. Concentrate on pure/applied math, physical science, a little carefully selected social science,
bio-medical science, and engineering. And, be careful: When you have to write an answer to a test question, an essay, a lab report, term paper, research paper, or honors paper, do NOT write it like Shakespeare or you will get an F.

F'get about history: It should be an important subject, but the historians have yet to develop a field worth teaching.

quote:

OUR FOOLISH COMMENTER RETURNS: You need a chill pill Sigma. Your rhetoric is way too combative. Good luck with your sciency endeavours. Hey rhetoric that's the purpose of writing ain't it?

quote:

Nope. You still don't get it.

Again, yet again, ..., I was tortured by a cabal English majors and teachers into 6
GD YEARS of that sewage and just one weak course in chemistry in HS, one weak one in
college, one weak course in physics in HS, taught myself freshman calculus and started on sophomore calculus in school, etc.

That lit sewage was supposed to teach about people -- lying sewage: To learn about people, start with E. Fromm, The Art of Loving.

Art? Literature is for sewage as art.

Want art? Okay, Bach, Chaconne.

Booth is at Berkeley? There have been some darned good people at Berkeley: M. Loeve and his student L. Breiman. Now D. Brillinger, student of J. Tukey at Princeton.

The college I went to pushed this humanities stuff to a bunch of girls, bright, moderately wealthy, sometimes pretty, but, still, had a quite good math department and an okay physics department, and I got partly caught up. Then with a lot of independent study, I made more
progress, especially around DC on pure/applied math for US national security. Then with some applied math and computing, I saved FedEx from going out of business, twice -- pleased the BoD. Then I got my Ph.D. -- did my dissertation research independently in my first summer.
I had one really good prof, a star student of Cinlar at Princeton. And I had some
good profs. My dissertation was directed by a three word comment from G. Nemhauser
before I went to grad school -- he liked the final results.

My grad school progress was partly because I took a problem in a course, couldn't find an answer, and signed up for a reading course. to study, not necessarily solve, it.

In two weeks I had a really nice solution. It also solved a problem in the famous Arrow, Hurwicz, Uzawa paper -- IIRC poor Uzawa has not gotten his prize yet! So, that was pretty good for some independent work in two weeks. I then had a halo. Since the work was publishable, I'd also done in principle a second dissertation in two weeks -- good progress.

I could have done some good work in those 6 GD years of that lit sewage.

I'm not pissed now. This is not pissed. I've calmed down. This is way below pissed. I used to be pissed, really pissed, way beyond pissed.

Uh, but long I thought that on lit and Shakeystick the fault was mine. I was dumped on by the English teachers: One English term paper I wrote was on the transistor and another was on the laser – both got IIRC B on content and C on style with no details on what if anything was wrong.

I also got dumped on in K-12: E.g., my eighth grade arithmetic teacher gave me a D and individually and warmly, fervently, seemingly sincerely, advised me never to take anymore math. Gads. I was no doubt by a wide margin the best math student she was ever within 10 miles of. She DID have a pretty, sweet, slightly plump, maybe E cup, daughter just my age! Like lots of boys that age, my handwriting was a total train wreck, so in multiplying 1234 by
5678 my columns didn't line up, and usually I got the wrong answer. So GD what? Sloppy hand writing. Has next to nothing to do with math.

Plane geometry -- gorgeous material. Ugly, nasty teacher. So, I slept in class and refused to admit doing any homework. In fact, the back of the book had some more difficult supplementary problems, and I solved ALL of them. One took me a weekend. On Monday I mentioned it in class. After 20 minutes ... how'd I know the teacher and other students weren't
working those problems too? When I gave a hint, she screamed "You knew how to do it all along." Of COURSE I did; I'd never mention it otherwise!

Later she said "You can't do that". I'd just reinvented the advanced technique similitude and shown it to her.

I should have been studying some of the A. Gleason material -- right, long a Harvard prof who once gave a fantastic video on plane geometry, never got his Ph.D., knocked off one of Hilbert's problems instead.

My Math SAT, CEEB, and GRE scores said I was doing just fine in math.

Lesson 1: Teachers who don't know what the heck they are talking about should STFU.

Lesson 2: Lit teachers should hang their heads in shame for drawing a salary for work definitely harmful and otherwise less useful than cleaning toilets.

Lesson 3: A few lit teachers with some brains, if there are any, should get together and work up some actual, significant, non-trivial, worthwhile, teachable material about, say, people. E.g., the most important thing about people can learn from some of lit is that people like story telling -- okay, then, make good lessons and lectures on this. Make sure there are no more than 1/2 as many lit courses as courses in any of the important subjects with real content, e.g., math, physics, engineering, bio-medical science, ....

SurreptitiousMuffin posted:

They called me mad, but I did it. My delvings into internet comments sections have discovered, on a controversial article saying that Shakespeare is good, a rich vein of the purest neckbeard. Last comment was six hours ago, so there's a chance it's still moving.