|
I'll never get "in hospital." Which one?
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
THE hospital. That's which one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:OK smarty pant. It's pants because they cover two legs, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
It's just old timey like The Japans
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dklVypazQsA Today is a good day for the non-terrible YT intellectual community.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
It's wonderful for its analysis and especially for showing sloppy thinkers why the principle of charity makes arguments stronger and isn't some empty double-dealing rhetorical trick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dklVypazQsA This guy's take on why Sherlock is poo poo is loving brilliant and a must watch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Right. And you cut off the end of the word to abbreviate it. Hence no s. And yet they refer to multiple sports in the singular. I blame the monarchy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:And yet they refer to multiple sports in the singular. I blame the monarchy. On an island that small theres going to be rampant inbreeding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nT9atOg0LA Was Anita acting in good faith with her intentions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nT9atOg0LA Lol, find out next time as we breathlessly pore over Anita's every word to find a contradiction we invented by not listening to what she actually said, interpreting in the most ignorant way imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dklVypazQsA Does he cover the whole series? Cause I'm only on episode 2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Lol, find out next time as we breathlessly pore over Anita's every word to find a contradiction we invented by not listening to what she actually said, interpreting in the most ignorant way imaginable. do you have an actual criticism or are you just going to declare "look at this bad video guys" and hope everybody else nods in agreement, rubbing their chins
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Does he cover the whole series? Cause I'm only on episode 2. Like 3 episodes. The focus is on AS's criqitue of the show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:do you have an actual criticism or are you just going to declare "look at this bad video guys" and hope everybody else nods in agreement, rubbing their chins I thought it was pretty clear if you watch the video. They consider themselves to have 'caught' Anita Sarkeesian in a contradiction that undermines her ability to be a part of this debate. However, that's only a concession if they misinterpret her stating that many online behaviours which form part of an harassment strategy aren't legally defined as harassment. Adults discussing complex problems can't just rely on a single lens (legality) to understand and communicate ideas. Idiot children who treat opinions like they're team sports like to view issues through a single lens because it's far easier to arrive at a aha gotcha moment with a single lens. They also define themselves merely as 'the opposition', their actual opinions are nearly formless because they need to keep them that way in order to 'win' the team sport. They can only sustain themselves in a hugbox because there is no strength and conviction to their arguments at all, as demonstrated by every single debate engagement these folks have ever had. edit: another reason they are 'the opposition', they're fuckin' defined by search terms. This is the way they make their money: - Anita Sarkeesian - Feminism - VidCon - PewDiePie - etc etc Whatever's getting the hits, that's what they're weighing in on, and they just keep on their team and everything will be fine. Maluco Marinero fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Jul 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
I do have to say though, as a huge Bill Nye fan, his new show's pretty awful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
i can't remember where it was twitter or here or elsewhere but peeps were saying armoured skeptic wasn't that bad but holy poo poo is he an awful liar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
Even his name is terrible. You're either Armored Skeptic or Armoured Sceptic. Unless it was a deliberate Inglourious Basterds stylistic choice, but I'm not sure he's that smart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:On an island that small theres going to be rampant inbreeding. i mean your country was founded and continues as a place for poo poo brits to go to so
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i can't remember where it was twitter or here or elsewhere but peeps were saying armoured skeptic wasn't that bad but holy poo poo is he an awful liar. I've had so many people try and defend him and Shoe to me but holy poo poo they are just as bad as Sargon et al. Only difference is that they're just more slick compared to Sargon's terrible everything. Like, my first exposure of AS was in a video response Garrett did to him and loving hell AS came off as the smuggest gently caress I've ever heard. His contribution to the Questions White Men Have video didn't help either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
SteelMentor posted:I've had so many people try and defend him and Shoe to me but holy poo poo they are just as bad as Sargon et al. Only difference is that they're just more slick compared to Sargon's terrible everything. So you haven't seen any of TL;DR's vids, then Maluco Marinero posted:They also define themselves merely as 'the opposition', their actual opinions are nearly formless because they need to keep them that way in order to 'win' the team sport. It's something I've been trying to articulate for a while, but hbomb ended up putting it well in his AS video: they treat their opinions as the null hypothesis. If your opinions are the default, you don't have to defend or even articulate them; you just need to knock down the people who disagree with them. Any introspection or examination of what exactly those opinions are would run dangerously close to being interesting, and that would put your entire youtube ad empire at risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
So can we all agree after watching Hbomb's video that AS is a trans erasing piece of poo poo and not 'one of the good ones'?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
I haven't been able to watch it yet, but the linked "ethical skeptic " site in the description makes me nervous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:So you haven't seen any of TL;DR's vids, then To be honest I completely forgot he existed. On the scale of shitlords, he's a low rank for just being insufferable. Praseodymi posted:So can we all agree after watching Hbomb's video that AS is a trans erasing piece of poo poo and not 'one of the good ones'? Was this ever in doubt? They're bffs with Blair loving White. Anyone who deals with that piece of garbage is guilty by association imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I haven't been able to watch it yet, but the linked "ethical skeptic " site in the description makes me nervous. I haven't read all of the page, but it's just used for it's definition of the null hypothesis and some common errors. Why Wikipedia wouldn't have done I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
lying about videos to people that haven't seen them is the most rage inducing thing. like in the fox from the west vs destiny debate fox tells destiny that shaun&jen turned 90 arsons into 5 in his einzefall video except it was the xy einzenfall assholes that turned 5 arsons into 90. shaun even showed that those other 85 were mostly kitchen fires with a couple of trash fires.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:lying about videos to people that haven't seen them is the most rage inducing thing. like in the fox from the west vs destiny debate fox tells destiny that shaun&jen turned 90 arsons into 5 in his einzefall video except it was the xy einzenfall assholes that turned 5 arsons into 90. shaun even showed that those other 85 were mostly kitchen fires with a couple of trash fires. That's what gets me most about this surge of regressives/internet intellectuals/anti-sjw/whatever. They're the most disingenuous bunch of fucks I've ever seen. They never seem to argue in good faith, regularly fudging numbers, misrepresenting evidence/arguments, flat out making poo poo up etc etc. I know the Right have done this since the dawn of time, but it seems particularly prominent in this iteration of the same old shite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
SteelMentor posted:That's what gets me most about this surge of regressives/internet intellectuals/anti-sjw/whatever. They're the most disingenuous bunch of fucks I've ever seen. They never seem to argue in good faith, regularly fudging numbers, misrepresenting evidence/arguments, flat out making poo poo up etc etc. Youtube intellectuals don't actually have an education in a polymath sense. These are not people that went to university to become actual thinkers. Take Sargon of Akkad for example. The only reason that putz exists is because of his accent. It is continually amazing how many shitbirds, especially in America, fall for anyone with an English accent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:This guy's take on why Sherlock is poo poo is loving brilliant and a must watch. It's very good, although the original stories generally weren't Fair-Play Mysteries so it seems odd to mark the show down for that (to say nothing of the idea that mysteries must be Fair-Play in the first place).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:It's very good, although the original stories generally weren't Fair-Play Mysteries so it seems odd to mark the show down for that (to say nothing of the idea that mysteries must be Fair-Play in the first place). Yes but the loving boomerang
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
I love Sherlock (obviously the earlier series, maybe s4e1) so I don't really want to have to hate it but also want to watch that video?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:I love Sherlock (obviously the earlier series, maybe s4e1) so I don't really want to have to hate it but also want to watch that video? I'm not even sure what your question is here. Just watch the video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:I love Sherlock (obviously the earlier series, maybe s4e1) so I don't really want to have to hate it but also want to watch that video? it's quite good and accurate. it even discusses how the pilot was better than what eventually came out due to the time constraints. i had never heard of that jekyll and hyde show and it sounds hilariously dumb and bad. keep in mind tho that harold bomberguy would also defend the prequels and bvs so he isn't infallible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:I thought it was pretty clear if you watch the video. They consider themselves to have 'caught' Anita Sarkeesian in a contradiction that undermines her ability to be a part of this debate. However, that's only a concession if they misinterpret her stating that many online behaviours which form part of an harassment strategy aren't legally defined as harassment. Adults discussing complex problems can't just rely on a single lens (legality) to understand and communicate ideas. Idiot children who treat opinions like they're team sports like to view issues through a single lens because it's far easier to arrive at a aha gotcha moment with a single lens. They also define themselves merely as 'the opposition', their actual opinions are nearly formless because they need to keep them that way in order to 'win' the team sport. The "rational" line of thought is always preposterously rigid. The standard line on why feminism is no longer necessary is that there are no laws that forbid women from participating in civic life or working. If you're so dumb that such an argument seems appealing to you, I don't see how anyone can help you think more clearly. Shoeonhead's argument about Anita Sarkeesian is that she could not have been harassed because there is no law specifically against what Carl did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
and even if you accept their argument that everything is fully equal right now that doesn't mean things will always be that way. look at iran or afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
SteelMentor posted:That's what gets me most about this surge of regressives/internet intellectuals/anti-sjw/whatever. They're the most disingenuous bunch of fucks I've ever seen. They never seem to argue in good faith, regularly fudging numbers, misrepresenting evidence/arguments, flat out making poo poo up etc etc. The Marketplace of Ideas™ only really works if people are arguing in good faith (which is why it works reasonably well in academia). If they're not, the whole thing turns into a question who can appeal to whatever horse-poo poo drives the greatest emotional response. It's a pretty wide gap in that theory of debate, and it really only favors the least scrupulous (which is why they love invoking that poo poo pretty much all the time).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:I haven't read all of the page, but it's just used for it's definition of the null hypothesis and some common errors. Yeah, the weird part is that reading a bit more of the page, it looks a lot like it's written by someone well off their rocker. The description of fallacies there is mostly technically correct, it's true (though the author makes up names for a bunch of things with Unneccessary Symbolic Capitalized References). The other parts are written in a way that seems like the author is way off the deep end of the pond. And I say that as someone who generally subscribes to a lot of the philosophy of science positions that I encountered during my skim. Sidenote: the naming part is a thing I've noticed with the discourse around scientific/meta-scientific/stat logic material. There's a tremendous amount of people rediscovering well-documented concepts and creating private vocabularies for them, both within and outside of the academy. Lots of reinventing the wheel going on as folks rediscover specific logical errors and, in particular, corollaries to the problem of induction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Even his name is terrible. You're either Armored Skeptic or Armoured Sceptic. Unless it was a deliberate Inglourious Basterds stylistic choice, but I'm not sure he's that smart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Why would you have a C in the first syllable of skeptic? Do brits pronounce it the same as septic? do you disagree that in this case it would be a valid reading?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
No but I'm genuinely curious if Brits pronounce another thing different, or if this is a case of good old Webster being right again with regard to how things should be spelled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 16:13
|
|